freemonkey

Today I stopped at a thrift store and took a look at the religion area of the book section. Interesting, there was only 1 full bible there, while there more than a dozen New Testaments, shelves & shelves of devotional books about the New Testament & Jesus, including study guides. There was also this little book put out by the JW's called "Reasoning", which tickled me.

Now I'm curious to know how many people own just the NT, as opposed to how many own both. Are less and less people even being exposed to the OT, I wonder?

mata leao

I like the old testament. what's wrong with it? clearly it is the most realistic, accurate portrayal of ancient and medieval human culture. The old testament perhaps suffers form the fact that it tells it like it was/is.

Sauron

1. What's wrong with it? It is inaccurate.

2. It does not portray ancient culture accurately.

3. It was finished before medieval culture even got started, so it has zero to say about that period of history.

Is this some kind of guess-a-thon that you are conducting, mata hari?

CJD

Very generally speaking, yes. From this perspective, Torah served a specific purpose for a specific time. See this thread for a more thorough discussion about this concept.

It's not that binary.

CJD

freemonkey

Thanks for the link. I've read through the thread, and I've gotta say, I still think so much of it seems like cherry-picking to me.

Now, I'm thinking back on the children's bible stories books I looked at when I was a kid (I'll see if I can find one or two second hand for confirmation), and I wonder how much more of the bible beyond those stories most adults really know about. :huh:

Rubyred

Why do you say that it is inaccurate and does not portray ancient culture accurately?

Tubby Lardmore

Were there certain rituals in the Old Testament that were said, in the O.T. itself, to hold for all time? Ones that are ignored by modern Christians? (I can't remember for sure.)

Sauron

Because it is. For a single (connected) example, there is no evidence for Israelites ever in Egypt, enslaved by the Egyptians, or the Exodus story.

The bible, like many documents, portrays its cultural enemies in an overly negative light. Sort of like the old maxim "history is written by the victors". The native Canaanites were portrayed as vastly evil and wicked - yet we know that the Hebrews were just another group of Canaanites, growing up around them and sharing a lot of the same cultural aspects.

robto

Sorry, Sauron, you'll have to do better than that. "No evidence for" does not equal "evidence against".

Here's something from a book I'm currently reading (highly recommended for anyone interested in ancient Israel, tho it's not an easy read), Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, by Donald B. Redford . He's discussing the book of Judges (p. 277):
According to the chronology of the Bible, the events in Judges should have taken place several hundred years before this time.

CJD

By saying this, you are saying that there is no coherent logic, internal or otherwise, that demands discontinuity between the Mosaic code and the so-called new covenant. You'll have to actually argue this, not just say it. I, for example, have no problems being kosher if I thought that it mattered. It's certainly not a matter of 'inconvenience', as if being a Christian in the modern West is convenient (it may be in those uncritical and culturally 'christian' pockets — like the South). It'd be like being an atheist in the South; it's not convenient. It involves self-sacrifice and living by example. It's hardly a matter as simple as 'cherry-picking'.

Most 'adults' don't care to know about them. And this goes way beyond religion too. Most 'adults' don't care about knowing anything beyond the surface. In the West, they have yet to grow up.

CJD