Clouseau

[QUOTE=Toto;4496136]The OP mentions neither publishers nor readers.

The OP asked a question. Can the Bible be a miscellaneous collection of ancient near eastern, Greek and Roman texts, and much edited?

The OP question is 'Would not a more useful title be "Miscellaneous collection of ancient near eastern, Greek and Roman texts"?' Would 'The Bible' not be a neutral, and more convenient option?

Some people do, yes- but does anyone claiming to be Christian advise that the Bible be read with prejudice against any fact or argument that may challenge its integrity? I have never heard of such a thing.

I'm sure that Christians in the USA take that attitude. But Christians in the USA are not so easy to find.

Let's not impugn motives.

That sounds like another pre-judgment!

Then why ask about a non-existent entity?

Fortuna

For reference, the OP ;

note - To conserve some space for brevity I'm using the last couple of responses, see the relevant post to see the entire series

Actually it seems to me that it is the publisher whom suggests a bias in the title of the book. It is the publisher who printed the title "Holy Bible". The adjective "Holy" suggests something about the book. The OP does specifically reference this title as is apparent from the line ;

Sans having to quote the definition of "holy" does it not suggest a "bias" to consider something as "holy" ? I believe that it does.

Therefore, to me the OP initially refers to the fact that the publisher refers to this book not simply as the "Bible" but as the "Holy Bible".

I will note here that we call it "Tanakh", which is an acronym for Torah, Nevim and Ketuvim. This name simply references the parts of the book.

Note that "bias" does not necessarily suggest something negative. (you simply assumed that)


No, not exactly.

It first asked, "Would not a more useful title be "Miscellaneous collection of ancient near eastern, Greek and Roman texts"?

Then secondly, it asked, "Is not this idea that this clearly edited set of texts have actually got much in common with each other and are in some way special likely to lead to a biased reading of what they are?"


Notice that I am in disagreement with the OP. I think that the "bias" is more likely to come from the use of the word "holy" in the title. The OP seems to think that a bias will result from "this idea that this clearly edited set of texts have actually got much in common with each other and are in some way special".

I can willingly admit that I do have a certain sort of bias about some of these texts because I am of Jewish heritage and some of these texts were written by my ancestors. And I don't think that is necessarily always a negative bias but perhaps other might consider it as such. I've got no problem with that and they may well be correct.

Yes, they do. For example, people who claim to be Christian will argue that in Bereshith 9 the "bene elohim" and the "bene adam" do not refer to angels and humans. Instead they will argue that this refers to 2 groups of humans. They will argue this in spite of the text of 1 Enoch and commentaries that clearly and conclusively make the case that these are referencing "angelic beings" mating with humans. They argue this because the proper interpretation is inconsistent with their interpretation of its integrity

Another example would be an interpretation that reads B.1 as as creation-ex-nihilo. Clearly that is not the case. The Tehom and the ruwach pre-existed.(note that B.1.2 can be read in a couple of ways, I've been taught that niether is preferable or more likely than the other, and the later commentaries are mixed on this).

Your condition of "prejudice against any fact or argument that may challenge its integrity: seems as naivete to me. More than one interpretations are possible, so "integrity" is relative and not absolute. (example - some Christians interpret the "let us create man in our image..." as the trinity, other interpret it as the Heavenly court of the elohim. )


Au contraire, Christians are very easy to find in the USA. At least ,those who claim to be. There are many types and varieties of Christians.
While some they might not fit your idea of a Christian, that would be engaging your own "No true Scottsman" fallacy. Otherwise, How can I know that you are a true Christian either ?


You ignore the reality of the situation. There are many types and varieties of Christians. The results are relative to the type of Christian.


LOL. Case in point about the variation in Christian beliefs.

Clouseau

That's not at all the same, though. That's just your construction (which maybe totally fallacious, anyway), not their explicit claim.

Do they include those who say that there is only one sort of Christian?

Sven

Of course. That's actually the funny thing for us here: Many, many Christian denominations, contradicting each other, each claiming that they are the only True Christians.

Most Christians claim to do:
http://www.nak.org/en/faith-and-church/creed/
http://www.amen-online.de/c_aposto.htm#apoe
http://www.commongoodonline.com/credo.php

Clouseau

Who is to say that those people are incorrect?

Is that a relevant answer in this context?

Sven

Well, since they say different things about being a true Christian, at least most of them have to be incorrect. I have no idea to determine which denomination is right, do you?

Since I don't accuse other people of lying if there's no good evidence that they do, most Christians claiming to believe in the holy spirit is of course good evidence that most people indeed do believe in the holy spirit.

BTW, you should look after your quotes. The "preview" button is of great help here.

Sven

Sure, here you are:
You have to believe in the Bible and talk with God, live as a Christian to understand some things about the Bible.

I've heard statements like this often from Christians, but they are difficult to google.

Clouseau

It's a far cry from saying that one must be prejudiced against empirical evidence.

Clouseau

Then you can't say which, if any, are Christians.

But I don't think that Toto claims to be a Christian. That is the context, if you care to look.

Sven

Umm, no. I can not say which ones are True Christians. But they are all Christians, since they all believe in Jesus. It's as simple as this.

Toto's orignal statement was about Christians. So I only showed that Christians do believe in the holy spirit. Sorry for any misunderstandings.