Scriptural literacy

[Robin]

Examples of illiteracy? They are splattered all over this forum.

Statements based on not reading what the Bible tells us about lkife in heaven.

Other statements based on not reading what Genesis says in the first few chapters.

Other statements assuming that the whole Bible is one huge Allegory.

Still other statements proposing a host of non-biblical things which cleary show the person never read what he chooses to criticize.

Don't forget statements claiming that there is no scriptural evidence for Hell as a place of eternal punishment.

Oh, wait a minute, that was your scriptural illiteracy.

 

[Robin]

When unable to refute the godless do tend to-toot!

When unable to back up their wild claims the "godly" do tend to spout gibberish.

 

[Piggy]

Don't forget statements claiming that there is no scriptural evidence for Hell as a place of eternal punishment.

That's a very interesting point.

Would you care to discuss the various positions taken in the Bible on that issue?

Or are you going to take a unitary interpretive stance?

Either way, it's definitely interesting, and a legitimate issue of Biblical scholarship. Worthy of discussion here, I think.

 

[Robin]

That's a very interesting point.

Would you care to discuss the various positions taken in the Bible on that issue?

Or are you going to take a unitary interpretive stance?

Either way, it's definitely interesting, and a legitimate issue of Biblical scholarship. Worthy of discussion here, I think.

Eternal punishment does seem to be suggested by the scriptures. I can't see any ambiguity, can you?

Revelations 14
9. Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying in a loud voice, "Whoever worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or his hand
10. will drink the wine of God's wrath, which has been poured undiluted into the cup of his anger. He will be tortured with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the lamb.
11. The smoke from their torture goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image or for anyone who receives the mark of its name."

International Standard Version 2008

Matthew 25:46

These people will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.

International Standard Version 2008

I am not aware of any actual contradiction to these. Both Old and New Testaments have reference to the worm that dieth not and the flame that is not quenched, without specific mention that we will be conscious to experience this desecration.

Revelations also mentions a "second death" in three places and is most specific in Revelations 21:

But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."

Now I suppose you could interpret this as "you will be re-killed with fire and sulfur". However if it is assumed that the Bible is consistent then it would have to be taken in context with Revelations 14:11 which specifies "for ever and ever" for this torture and the Matthew quote that refers to "eternal punishment".

So you could say "the Bible is inconsistent" or you could say "the Bible describes eternal torment for sinners", but it would be scripturally illiterate to say "the Bible does not describe eternal torment for sinners".

 

[Greediguts]

Inanities proving Biblical Illiteracy

Ummmm, Man wasn't given work until he sinned. [ignores context]
Ummmm, There's nothing to do in heaven except drink wine. [ignores context]
Uummm Claiming to be a Christian makes you one. [ignores context]
Ummmm God tells us he can't be understood. [biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Christians are supposed to follow Mosaic Law. [Profound biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Jews knew nothing about restoration prophecies. [assumes to know]
ummmm How do you know they knew? [assumes it's impossible to know if they knew or not]
Ummmm How do you know Jesus knew? [Silly question showing profound ignorance of Jewish historical context]
Ummmm I see no reason to conclude they knew! [Understandable in view of sloppy scholarship]
Ummmm Where in the Bible does it say they Knew? [Assumes that the exact words They knew! are needed for us to know they knew.]
ummmm The only way the prophets could prophecy that way is of they were drug addicts. [false premise]
ummmm Diversity of opinion means the original work had no opinion. [false premise]
ummmm Anything written during that time is worthless. [false premise]
Ummmm Moral standards are better now because they approve gay sex. [subjective evaluation]
Ummmm No one has a right to tell me what to do! [false premise]
and

Ummmm God raped Mary! So there! [A real humdinger which needs no refutation since it shows profound scriptural illiteracy.]


BTW
Now comes the droning statement of still holding breath while waiting because they still don't see.

Well, I'm (somewhat) guilty of number 2. That was going on in this thread about heaven. He still hasn't responded to my question that I posed to him there. I was trying to keep things light....I didn't expect...a sort of...Spanish Inquisition.(Begins glancing nervously around the room)

 

[Robin]

Not even all the writers of scripture were scripturally literate.

For example it is generally held the the "all better now" epilogue of Job is a later addition.

If this is true then the writer of the epilogue must be rather theologically obtuse given how he has watered down the argument.

Also, are we to suppose that the New Testament writers had a close familiarity with the Old Testament - books that would have been rare, jealously guarded and written in an unfamiliar tongue?

 

[Brian-M]

Can someone tell me where I can find the verses which tell us we don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament anymore? I'd like to examine them for myself

Not that it makes any difference to this argument. Even if the old laws are no longer enforced doesn't make them any less unjust and immoral. I notice Radrook still hasn't answered Piggy's question in the second post, regardless of how many times it's been repeated.

 

[Brian-M]

I didn't expect...a sort of...Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear... [/montypython]

 

[Robin]

Ummmm Christians are supposed to follow Mosaic Law. [Profound biblical illiteracy showing]

An example of how Radrook deems any interpretation that does not agree with his own as "illiteracy". Here is the passage in question.

17.Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,
18. because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.
19.So whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 5:17-19 International Standard Version

To me this seems to mean exactly what it says, especially in context of the Old Testament prophesy Jesus claimed to be fulfilling which specifically says heaven and earth must pass away before the coming of the new Kingdom.

And I seem to remember that when this was being debated Radrook declined to join in and explain what else this could mean, even in the context.

Then he waits for a period for the debate to go away and suddenly declares that it it "profound biblical illiteracy" to suggest that these words mean what they say.

This interpretation may be wrong, and I am willing to hear another plausible interpetation. But the claim that this is "profound illiteracy" must either be argued and defended or dismissed as laughable.

Of course later on Paul tells the Ephesians that they are excused from the Mosaic Law. But I don't think any atheists here are claiming the Bible is consistent.

(edit: There was, I seem to remember, some debate about whether it should be "set aside" "break" or "annul", none of which appears to change the meaning of the passage)

 

[Greediguts]

Also, are we to suppose that the New Testament writers had a close familiarity with the Old Testament - books that would have been rare, jealously guarded and written in an unfamiliar tongue?

Interesting point. It would appear that the later authors of Matthew and Luke had some access to the Old testament. The author of Mark did not.

The book Who Wrote the Gospels by Randel Helms, points out where the author "Mark" would blend garbled passages from different Old Testament books. Randel believed this blending came from oral tradition finally being written down and quite possibly the author of Mark quoting directly from incorrect texts. The author of Mark also knew enough about Jewish customs to get them wrong.

"And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." (Mark 7:2-4)

The evidence of the Talmud is that ritual washing of the hands before meals, in the time of Jesus, was obligatory only for priests. The author of Mark was confusing Jewish practice of his own time, with Palestinian practice from forty years prior. Randel makes more of an argument that points to the author of Mark being non-Jewish and an adult convert to Christianity, as he seems unaware whenever his source was quoting or paraphrasing the Old Testament and never corrects the source when it makes an error. The authors of Matthew and Luke start correcting those errors.

Example:

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. (Mark 10:19).

Mark's source invented a new commandment (defraud). Both Matthew (16:18) and Luke (18:20) quietly get rid of "defraud" as they assume Jesus would know the Ten Commandments given to Moses.

It's an interesting book I recommend if you haven't read it yet.

 

[Robin]

It's an interesting book I recommend if you haven't read it yet.

Thanks, it does sound like an interesting book. I will check it out.

I had remembered that Matthew had some doubtful OT scholarship, but I admit I can't think of it or find it offhand, so I may well be misremembering. He does describe Jesus as saying "you have been told to love your neighbour and hate your enemy", where Leviticus just has "Love your neighbour". However he may have been talking about the interpretations of the current Rabbis rather than the actual text.

 

[Piggy]

Eternal punishment does seem to be suggested by the scriptures. I can't see any ambiguity, can you?

It's not a matter of ambiguity, necessarily -- although it is sometimes an issue of our not knowing exactly how to interpret the text.

What's more important is the understanding that "the scriptures" is not a meaningful term.

I am not aware of any actual contradiction to these. Both Old and New Testaments have reference to the worm that dieth not and the flame that is not quenched, without specific mention that we will be conscious to experience this desecration.

Ancient Hebrew religion shows no evidence of any doctrine of eternal punishment.

Modern Xian doctrine of Hell and ancient Hebraic beliefs are not reconcilable.

It's too late and I'm too tired to delve into it now, so I'll have to check back in tomorrow or Saturday to get into more detail, but I'm glad that someone cares enough to ask!

Now I suppose you could interpret this as "you will be re-killed with fire and sulfur". However if it is assumed that the Bible is consistent then it would have to be taken in context with Revelations 14:11 which specifies "for ever and ever" for this torture and the Matthew quote that refers to "eternal punishment".

That assumption -- that the Bible is consistent -- is simply not tenable. If you make that assumption, you have to ignore everything we know about the Bible.

So you could say "the Bible is inconsistent" or you could say "the Bible describes eternal torment for sinners", but it would be scripturally illiterate to say "the Bible does not describe eternal torment for sinners".

This is what I mean when I say that it doesn't make sense to make statements about "the Bible".

It's like trying to make statements about all the holdings of a library.

 

[Hokulele]

Don't forget statements claiming that there is no scriptural evidence for Hell as a place of eternal punishment.

Oh, wait a minute, that was your scriptural illiteracy.

I think there is plenty of evidence regarding some type of eternal punishment. (Be careful of the word "Hell". Translation is a pain in the neck.) What is a more interesting question is the scriptural evidence regarding who will be subjected to this punishment. As far as I know, there is only one reference to being judged by one's deeds, but no definition of what are good deeds and what aren't. Some translations describe these people as "the wicked" (no reference to the book or Broadway production, AFAIK).

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I suppose one could assume those who are condemned are those who either a) do not believe in the god of the bible, or b) fail to meet the expectations of the god of the bible. But there is nothing that makes this explicit. Most references I have seen indicate that some go to heaven, some go to hell, and most are just dead.

Either way, if there really is an afterlife, I expect the nether regions to be populated with many of the incredulous.

 

[Piggy]

Not even all the writers of scripture were scripturally literate.

For example it is generally held the the "all better now" epilogue of Job is a later addition.

If this is true then the writer of the epilogue must be rather theologically obtuse given how he has watered down the argument.

No. One does not alter scripture without purpose.

Also, are we to suppose that the New Testament writers had a close familiarity with the Old Testament - books that would have been rare, jealously guarded and written in an unfamiliar tongue?

I don't know where you're getting that.

Certainly the authors of NT writings were familiar with the Hebrew scrolls in circulation at the time.

I don't know where you get this idea that the Hebrew Bible was "rare", "jealously guarded", or "written in an unfamiliar tongue".

 

[Piggy]

Can someone tell me where I can find the verses which tell us we don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament anymore? I'd like to examine them for myself

As usual, it depends on whose Jesus you want to look at.

Each gospel had a different version of Jesus, as did Paul and pseudo-Paul.

 

[Piggy]

Of course later on Paul tells the Ephesians that they are excused from the Mosaic Law.

Paul and the Jerusalem church led by James and Simon Peter suffered a schism on that point.

Paul favored sharing table with gentiles (not keeping kosher) and disregarded circumcision. Of course, Paul won. That's natural, because only Paul's version of Xianity could possibly win the number of converts necessary to transform the Jesus cult of Judaism into a full fledged religion.

 

[Piggy]

The book Who Wrote the Gospels by Randel Helms, points out where the author "Mark" would blend garbled passages from different Old Testament books. Randel believed this blending came from oral tradition finally being written down and quite possibly the author of Mark quoting directly from incorrect texts. The author of Mark also knew enough about Jewish customs to get them wrong.

I doubt this.

Mark is the most Jewish of all the gospel writers.

The problem here is that in Jesus' day there were any number of scrolls held as canonical by any number of various factions.

The idea that there are "incorrect texts" to cite is an error arising from our modern perspective on what is canonical and what is not.

 

[Robin]

Can someone tell me where I can find the verses which tell us we don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament anymore? I'd like to examine them for myself

Well I have quoted where Jesus upheld the law. For balance I should quote the part where Paul says the law was abolished. For example Ephesians 2:15:

International Standard Version
He rendered the law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, thus creating in himself one new humanity from the two, thereby making peace,

And just to confuse the argument, Romans 2:

11 For God does not show favouritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,

15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
New International Version

Make of it what you will.

Not that it makes any difference to this argument. Even if the old laws are no longer enforced doesn't make them any less unjust and immoral.

Exactly right.

 

[Robin]

I don't know where you're getting that.

Certainly the authors of NT writings were familiar with the Hebrew scrolls in circulation at the time.

I don't know where you get this idea that the Hebrew Bible was "rare", "jealously guarded", or "written in an unfamiliar tongue".

Any book was rare in the first few centuries BC, a book was something that had to be copied out long-hand. Try writing out the Old Testament and tell me how long it takes.

Now there were various scrolls about at the time in various versions, most of them incomplete (see "The Book of Leviticus By Gordon J. Wenham, pp 13-15), it seems utterly unlikely that a Hebrew text of the Pentateuch would be a common item at that time.

Jealously guarded - the texts have always been regarded as sacred objects in the Jewish religion - subject to strict rules and rituals. The same is true today.

Unfamiliar tongue - well you tell me what languages the writers of Matthew, John or Luke, for example would have been familiar with. What language would Paul have been familiar with?

 

[Toke]

Having read the bible, your talents are completely wasted on radrook.

On another note, are you trying to fit christianity to modern society?