Scriptural literacy

[tuc0]

This is like reading two threads at once. One is people discussing the bible and interpretations of certain details... the other is Radrook angrily mumbling to himself. One thread is interesting, the other hilarious.

Keep it up

 

[volatile]

Any co-incidence that Radrook isn't responding to Piggy's clearly literate posts?

 

[Toke]

Any co-incidence that Radrook isn't responding to Piggy's clearly literate posts?

Yes it is a bit odd

I am still waiting to have my simple and maybe naive questions answered by Radrooks vastly superior scholarship.

 

[ddt]

This is like reading two threads at once. One is people discussing the bible and interpretations of certain details... the other is Radrook angrily mumbling to himself. One thread is interesting, the other hilarious.

Yes, Piggy, Greediguts, others, keep up the interesting discussion.

Most of Radrook's posts don't even address anything raised in another post, but begin by setting up a gigantic strawman: nothing has changed in that respect since the begin of this thread. And in the exceptional case it does react to another poster:

Your interpretation? LOL the Bible doesn't need any other interpretation other than that which it provides by itself.

If you think so, why don't you enlighten us with that interpretation? Your posts have been awfully devoid of explaining what is, in your view, the right interpretation of the Bible. That goes back to RandFan's question at the beginning about stoning someone for picking up sticks on Sabbath.

 

[Piggy]

Example of godless reasoning.
<snip>

Radrook, we would be happy to have you join the discussion on this thread.

You could start by addressing some of the questions that have been asked of you. Or perhaps you could introduce a valid question of Biblical exegesis.

Or you can continue heckling from the sidelines, it's up to you.

 

[Piggy]

Your interpretation? LOL the Bible doesn't need any other interpretation other than that which it provides by itself.

This is where you're wrong.

When we talk about context, as you've done -- and are correct to do -- we have to consider not just the Biblical context, but the larger context of culture and writings during the time when a book was composed, redacted, and originally circulated.

For instance, when we consider Mark's use of the phrase "son of God" to refer to Jesus, it's best not to jump to a conclusion about what that means based on modern -- of even Constantinian -- interpretations of the phrase.

When we look at precedents in the Hebrew Bible, we see that the Jewish king is referred to as the son of God all the way back to David.

And when we look at the writings of other Jewish sects contemporary with the gospels of Jesus, we see that others, such as the Essenes, had their own "son of God" which they were promoting as the true leader of Israel.

It took the Greek evangelists to blend this idea of Jesus as "son of God" (rightful leader of Israel) with Hellenistic religious tropes and come up with a Jesus who was literally a demigod, the actual physical offspring of a human woman and a deity.

 

[Piggy]

Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Yes, this is interesting because it points out a theme that runs throughout the tales of Jesus' ministry, and which echoes the Hebrew tradition at least as far back as Isaiah.

Jesus consistently differentiates between his disciples, on the one hand, and laypersons on the other.

Modern-day American Xianity assumes that there is some universal discipleship of believers, but scripture does not consistently support this notion.

It's true that laypersons who believed in Jesus were blessed, but still, they were not privy to the specialized knowledge that the disciples had, and they did not have the commission to evangelize either.

When Jesus delivers the so-called "great commission", it is not to the masses. It is to those who have been given the understanding which the masses do not have.

So this modern idea that all Xians are called on to evangelize... it's simply not supported by the gospels.

In fact, the Jesus of the gospels would have said that they are not qualified to evangelize, that they have no standing to do so.

Now, Paul might have disagreed. Probably would have. But Paul's theology is not the same as the theology of the gospels, or of James and Simon Peter in Jerusalem.

 

[Radrook]

Another example of godless confusion"

"Jesus was ignorant of the OT!"

"Why do you say that?"

"Cause he said nobody had ever ascended to heaven?"

"True":

'Which, means?"

"Which means exactly what it says. That no man had ever entered God's heavenly realm.

"Ahaaa!"

"Ahah what?"

"My friend whose a Bible expert said that a prophet had ascended to heaven
on a chariot!"

"And your friend thinks Jesus was unaware of this when he made his statement!"

"Yep!"

"Has your friend considered that the two ascensions might be different and that's the reason why Jesus did not consider Elijah's ascension as qualifying for the concept he was referring to-dying and going to heaven?"

"Where in the Bible does it say it was different?"

"Well, it had to be referring to a different thing since the way into Jesus heaven is via death and Elijah was alive and well after he ascended since he is reported as writing and sending letters to the king from an earthly location after his ascension. Read it for yourself right here!"

"Ummm. that's your interpretation!"

"The Bible clearly tells me that Elijah was writing letters after he ascended
in the chariot needs and interpretation? How so?"

"Cause Jesus said no man ascended into heaven and Elijah went to heaven."

"But I just showed you that he survived. So the chariot obviously landed back
on earth and deposited him there."

"That's your interpretation!"

"Then how would you explain Elijah writing letters to the king from a city!"

"Ummm. writing from a heavenly city!"

"What basis do you have for saying that?"

'Ummm, that's my interpretation!"

'Interpretations need a basis. What's yours?"

"Cause we are told that Elijah ascended to heaven."

"But aren't we told by Jesus that no man ever entered into the heaven he was
referring to? Why do you discount this?"

"Cause Jesus was ignorant of what happened to Elijah Otherwise he wouldn't
have made that mistake!"

"That's absurd! The Jews taught the OT accounts to their children and
they were repeatedly read in the Synagogues."

"Unmmm. That's your interpretation!"

"No, it isn't, it's an established historical fact!"

"Ummm. why, cause you say so?"

'Research the subject by googling it and see for yourself."

"Ummm that's their interpretation!"

Whereupon the fruitless, time wasting exchange comes to an abrupt but refreshing end and the godless guy proclaims himself a confirmed skeptic,

BTW

Which Heaven?....

The Bible uses the word heaven to describe three very different places: God’s throne room (Hebrews 8:1); the physical universe, where the stars and planets reside (Psalm 8:3); and the Earth’s atmosphere: Genesis 1:20 speaks of a “fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” Genesis 27:28 and Deuteronomy 33:28 show that the “heavens shall drop down dew.” This again, is speaking of the Earth’s atmosphere.

So, in proximity to Earth, we could label the heavens that the Bible refers to as the first heaven, the sky within the Earth’s atmosphere; the second heaven, outer space; and the third heaven, God’s spiritual throne room. (2 Corinthians 12:2-3 actually use the phrase “third heaven” to describe God’s throne room.)
He could not have gone to the heaven of God’s throne (so says Jesus Christ), so where did he go? It should be obvious: Elijah “went up by a whirlwind into heaven,” or into the first heaven—the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, where birds fly and whirlwinds can exist! http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=4831.3093.0.0

The difference between the two viewpoints is a very significant one. On the one hand one viewpoint requires that we call Jesus ignorant and a liar. On the other hand we find that Jesus isn't a liar or ignorant. One creates internal disharmony which need not exist. The other shows us the internal harmony of the Bible. In view of this it becomes obvious why the godless with their discrediting anti-biblical agenda and priorities prefer the faulty interpretation-it serves them well.

BTW
This is where the popular but ineffective:

"I-don't-see-what-this-has-to-do-with-anything!" claim is enthusiastically deployed.

 

[Mark Felt]

Radrook, your posts are irrelevant to anything in this thread, or on this forum. You now exist only in quoted form.

 

[Paulhoff]

All this magical thinking and debating about it, all of it in order to get something straightened out about something that isn’t at its heart, true.

Paul

 

[Radrook]

Yes, Piggy, Greediguts, others, keep up the interesting discussion.

Most of Radrook's posts don't even address anything raised in another post, but begin by setting up a gigantic strawman:

MY focusing on the error of taking things out of context by twisting context or ignoring it isn't a strawman argument. It's very relevant to the chosen modus operandi of most self-proclaimed godless skeptics who choose to attack the Bible.

....nothing has changed in that respect since the begin of this thread. And in the exceptional case it does react to another poster:

Wrong again! The thread subject was about biblical illiteracy. Biblical illiteracy is caused by ignoring biblical context based on the misguided idea that in reference to the Bible anything and everything goes. If you examine the responses to the assertion-you will clearly see how the subject was ignored, twisted to mean something else entirely. How? Via hecklings, claims of feigned incomprehension of simplicities, and other such irrelevant minutiae.

If you think so, why don't you enlighten us with that interpretation?

Because the things I am referring to NEED NO INTERPRETATION.

[Your posts have been awfully devoid of explaining what is, in your view, the right interpretation of the Bible. That goes back to RandFan's question at the beginning about stoning someone for picking up sticks on Sabbath.

My view is that no one should foist personal interpretations on clearly-stated data. Or seek to create inexistent internal
disharmonies by twisting meaning , ignoring data, or otherwise mangling in order in the service of ulterior motives. This applies[as stated repeatedly but to no avail] to all literature not just the Bible.

BTW
I have very little patience with people who feign idiocy in order to supposedly win debates.
So if such individuals are seeking a sounding-board it isn't going to be me.

 

[Mark Felt]

It's at the heart of a large amount of human history for the last several thousand years. Why shouldn't we try to understand it?

 

[Piggy]

My view is that no one should foist personal interpretations on clearly-stated data. Or seek to create inexistent internal
disharmonies by twisting meaning , ignoring data, or otherwise mangling in order in the service of ulterior motives. This applies[as stated repeatedly but to no avail] to all literature not just the Bible.

Oh, I see.

In that case, you agree that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in the Bible.

You agree that Genesis 1 and 2 preserve two different and conflicting creation traditions.

You agree that there are 2 different, conflicting, and irreconcilable stories of the conquest of Canaan, and of David's youth, and of the establishment of the kingship.

You agree that the gospels present radically different visions of Jesus.

You agree that the gospel of John presents a timeline of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion which cannot be made to align with those of the other 3 gospels.

That's what the text clearly shows, so by your own words, you agree with that.

Glad to know it!

 

[volatile]

Can someone who Radrook hasn't got on ignore (I suspect Piggy has joined me on that fateful list) PM him or post here and ask him directly to engage with Piggy's fascinating posts? I think a good discussion could ensue, if only he was willing.

FWIW, my path to full atheism began with a conversation of much this type with a JW acquaintance - every time I had a query about what I saw as a problem or contradiction in JW theology, no matter how politely I posed it, she'd walk away. It's their standard operating procedure to deliberately avoid pointed questions from intelligent, reasonable questioners.

 

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Radrook
My view is that no one should foist personal interpretations on clearly-stated data. Or seek to create inexistent internal
disharmonies by twisting meaning , ignoring data, or otherwise mangling in order in the service of ulterior motives. This applies[as stated repeatedly but to no avail] to all literature not just the Bible.

Piggy

Oh, I see.

In that case, you agree that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in the Bible.

You agree that Genesis 1 and 2 preserve two different and conflicting creation traditions.

You agree that there are 2 different, conflicting, and irreconcilable stories of the conquest of Canaan, and of David's youth, and of the establishment of the kingship.

You agree that the gospels present radically different visions of Jesus.

You agree that the gospel of John presents a timeline of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion which cannot be made to align with those of the other 3 gospels.

That's what the text clearly shows, so by your own words, you agree with that.

Glad to know it!

To Radrook
How do you mach to different versions of the same story with interpertation?

 

[Piggy]

It took the Greek evangelists to blend this idea of Jesus as "son of God" (rightful leader of Israel) with Hellenistic religious tropes and come up with a Jesus who was literally a demigod, the actual physical offspring of a human woman and a deity.

D'oh!

I went back and made the same mistake, confusing Mark's orientation with Matthew's.

So let me clarify/correct....

Mark gives no birth story.

According to Mark, Jesus becomes aware of his status as the annointed one after he is baptised by John.

⁹At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Mark provides no birth narrative.

Matthew, the "Jewish gospel", adds a birth narrative:

¹⁸This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

²⁰But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ²¹She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

²²All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ²³"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

²⁴When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. ²⁵But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

So here we see conception via the Holy Spirit (an entity first envisioned in the theology of Ezekiel) introduced by Matthew, which is very interesting.

This is one of those areas where the beliefs of the Jesus cult would have varied fundamentally from established Temple-based Judaism, and perhaps represents the influence of Paul who, by the time of the writing of Matthew, has already been active, evangelizing to the pagans.

It could be argued that this passage conforms with ancient texts regarding the Nephilim, but it would be difficult to make a solid connection there.

Luke (a Greek) echoes Matthew, but greatly expands the story (see Luke 1 in its entirety for the full version):

²⁶In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

²⁹Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. ³¹You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. ³²He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

³⁴"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

³⁵The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

The addition of the birth narratives indicates that by the time of the writing of Matthew and Luke, the notion of divine conception had gained wide acceptance among Christian communities.

This could be traced to the influence of non-Jewish writings, as Paul and other evangelists brought an increasing number of pagans into the Xian fold.

Or it could be attributed to a desire to align Jesus with Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Most likely, it's a combination of the 2 influences.

 

[Paulhoff]

It's at the heart of a large amount of human history for the last several thousand years. Why shouldn't we try to understand it?

The word there is "TRY", I think one should try to understand human nature and where we really came from first, then we could understand the bible a little better.

Paul



But still in the end, WHY.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Silentknight, it occurs to me that the difference here is that maybe you're using a Buddhist approach and responding to unitary arguments with more unitary arguments to show how such arguments, if taken to their logical ends, self-destruct.

It's very difficult for me to do that on this thread because of the ostensible topic.

So maybe that's where our miscommunication is coming in.

Yes, I do that sometimes, to demonstrate how the same logical standards I'm arguing against could be used to draw very different conclusions. At the same time, I understand where you're coming from, and it wasn't my intention to come across as closed-minded. I know well that the books of the bible were written by different people, living at different times, in different places, and with different agendas to sell.

No, they're not compatible. When you look at the theology of the gospels as a whole, and the role of Satan within it, and within the context of the broader contemporary theology, and you compare that to the Satan of Job, the differences are significant.

The Satan of Job was a member of the Heavenly Council (a notion which had ceased to be orthodox by Jesus' time) who is not in any way antagonistic to Yahweh. Job's iconography harkens back to more ancient traditions, where we see the sea gods as Yahweh's primary antagonists.

Interesting. I'll have to remember that the next time someone tries to argue the unitary version of Satan as a prime evil entity. Either way, it shoots down Radrook's claim, such as he raised in the threads on the Noahic flood, that Satan and his demons were then as now responsible for the temptation and corruption of mankind.

The Satan of the 1st century CE is influenced by Zoroastrian, Babylonian, and Hellenistic philosophies, as well as the rabbinic tradition subsequent to Job.

The Satan of that period is a demonic figure who is opposed to the true light of God and his prophets and is able to inflict people with demonic possession.

I'm curious though. What was the reason for the change? Were they even talking about the same character as before?

And when we're talking about Genesis, we're talking about several traditions which were redacted into a single scroll.

Genesis 3 is most likely a free-standing oral tale, which is not necessarily related in any direct way to the surrounding tales.

In any case, the God of Genesis 2 forms Heaven and Earth, but it is not at all clear that this God is in full control of what happens on Earth, and perhaps not even in Heaven!

Well, that would explain why the creation account is told two separate times. I've had Christians claim, of course, that they're the same story, with the second one simply clarifying the first. I checked my NIV Study Bible and discovered it tried to reconcile these stories by rendering God's acts in the past perfect tense with the word "had" i.e. "had created."

The notion of a monotheistic and omnipotent God came much later.

Speaking of which, there's something I've been wondering. What is the most accurate translation of Genesis 1:1? I've heard that one possible translation, albeit one that isn't used in any official version of the bible, goes, "In the beginning the gods cut the skies from the deep." Does this hold any merit?

 

[Piggy]

I'm curious though. What was the reason for the change? Were they even talking about the same character as before?

There were 2 primary reasons for the change.

First, in the Hebrew community, El worship was supplanted by the Yahweh cult.

The old tradition of the Heavenly Council was tied to El worship. The Yahweh cult arose from the worship of a storm god who had no such council.

In the Yahwistic tradition which became dominant, the old version of Satan simply didn't fit. Yahweh had enemies and a chosen people, but did not have consorts or advisors or peers.

Btw, El worship persisted longer in the northern kingdom, and the calls by the southern kings to destroy the "high places" in the north were not, as it might seem, calls to destroy altars to Baal (the Canaanite god) but rather calls to get rid of the last vestiges of the previous Hebrew religion.

The second influence was Zoroastriansm, which viewed the world as a stage upon which the divine battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness was being waged.

Zoroastrian influence on Jewish religion was especially strong during the Babylonian exile.

So by Jesus' day, the Satan figure had lost its role as a member of the now defunct heavenly council and had taken on the new role of prince of the forces of darkness pitted against the Lord.

Well, that would explain why the creation account is told two separate times. I've had Christians claim, of course, that they're the same story, with the second one simply clarifying the first. I checked my NIV Study Bible and discovered it tried to reconcile these stories by rendering God's acts in the past perfect tense with the word "had" i.e. "had created."

Genesis and Exodus (as well as Kings and some other books) are compilations.

They can be contrasted with, say, Deuteronomy, which appears to have been composed out of whole cloth for political purposes.

The redactors of those books had the challenge of preserving several strains of tradition -- some written, some oral -- and weaving them into a single narrative.

Of course, it was impossible to preserve all of the original material and at the same time to create a unified narrative.

Generally, they opted for preservation.

So what we have in Genesis 1 and 2 is the preservation of 2 different creation tales in one scroll.

For perhaps the most extreme example of this interweaving, go and read the account of Moses on Sinai in Exodus. It's like watching a scene in several different remakes of a movie all interspliced. The action starts, then stops, then restarts again and happens in a slightly (or greatly) different way, then stops, then starts again at the beginning....

Speaking of which, there's something I've been wondering. What is the most accurate translation of Genesis 1:1? I've heard that one possible translation, albeit one that isn't used in any official version of the bible, goes, "In the beginning the gods cut the skies from the deep." Does this hold any merit?

We just don't know.

It can be translated as "In the beginning, God created" or "When God began to create".

Of course, there's a heckuva lot of difference there!

In the former version, there is nothing pre-existing God. In the latter, there is.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter, though, because it is more in line with other creation myths that existed in the Near East at that time.

 

[Radrook]

Another example of scriptural illiteracy has just cropped up folks This one claims that God wants us to hate knowledge. Obviously its based on extremely self-imposed limited reading followed by an unjustified hasty conclusion. In short what Proverbs or any other part of the Bible tells us about the subject of knowledge doesn't matter. However, if you dissect the Bible into small pieces and ignore context-umm-you are OK. If you bring content to bear, then you are umm a silly cultish fundie. A reasoning which goes to show why some individuals are utterly unqualied to teach.

But hey! I'm not gonna tell em-you tell em! : )