Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 06-01-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Readers of the Bible must assume that it is the word of God. They must not think that this assumption is open for debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

That is very far from the proposition that 'Most people who take the Bible seriously believe you're supposed to read it with a bias.'

If you think there is no bias in a presumptively undebatable assumption that the Bible is God's word, then you are defining bias so idiosyncratically as to preclude effective communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

No-one in his right mind admits that he has to lie in order to accept his own belief system.

Bias does not imply any sort of dishonesty. Bias leads to errors. Errors are not lies.

Clivedurdle · 06-01-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Thanks for some sanity in this train wreck of a thread! I wanted to explore what happens if we stop reifying this collection of works written over how long a period of time and creating imaginary connections that are probably not there!

Maybe the editorial and publishing processes used early spin techniques to build a story that was not there originally, and many people now read these stories from the extremely warped perspective of millenia of spin.

I was not expecting anyone to argue - when the word "holy" is used - that there isn't any spin or bias, or economies with the actualite or whatever!

I really liked your original post and I wish that idea got more discussion, especially amongst us christians.

I think that, for sure, the editing and publishing of the bible has shaped it but I'm not sure about building, "a story that was not there originally." The editors choose from pieces that WERE originally there after all. I think instead, that's where doctrine has come in. The editing just picked what pieces would make the cut. It's doctrines like, for instance, literalism that attempt to pick out some sort of consistency of very different pieces. Granted the development of doctrine is made easier when wildly different things like gnostic gospels haven't made the cut.

Remember we have two main versions - Hebrew and Xian.

The xian version can be understood as an add on - like building something on top of an original building - that has had the effect of completely remodelling the original. But why have the Jews not added to their Bible since? That would cause mayhem!

For example, a core xian assumption is that the "OT" prophecies Jesus.

Does it ? - Surely that is a classic reversal - once the concept of a Christ was invented the pre - existing stuff was reinterpreted.

Classic social construction of reality!

Very very very biased and prejudiced!

What if there were no original purpose, and it is a basically haphazard collection of writings that were edited together - not very coherently - after the fact?

WishboneDawn · 06-01-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Remember we have two main versions - Hebrew and Xian.

The xian version can be understood as an add on - like building something on top of an original building - that has had the effect of completely remodelling the original. But why have the Jews not added to their Bible since? That would cause mayhem!

For example, a core xian assumption is that the "OT" prophecies Jesus.

A core assumption of conservative christianity and probably a lot of moderates. Liberal and progressive circles, from what I understand, view the OT as the Hebrew Scriptures and don't point to the OT for Jesus predictions. It's a common assumption of christians but I'd still argue that's a matter of doctrine, not biblical editing. I don't read Isiah and get Jesus predictions and yet I'm reading essentially the same text as a Baptist that does. What's different are our doctrines and education on reading the bible.

Except that Matthew does sort of say, "Hey, Isiah predicted this people," doesn't he?

Quote:

Does it ? - Surely that is a classic reversal - once the concept of a Christ was invented the pre - existing stuff was reinterpreted.

Classic social construction of reality!

Very very very biased and prejudiced!

That I get! And there I think you've got a point. I also think that with a little education in textual criticism and historical criticism that can be defeated but that's not something we really teach people about, christian or secular.

An aside...I like, "the concept of a Christ was invented" phrasing. Whether Jesus was real or mythical that phrase is closer to the truth regardless of what the facts of his existence are.

Quote:

What if there were no original purpose, and it is a basically haphazard collection of writings that were edited together - not very coherently - after the fact?

The whole thing or the Herbrew or the Xtian? Pardon me if I'm a bit thick at the moment...Long day of renovations and housework with a stubborn husband.

Clivedurdle · 06-01-2007, 03:43 PM

Both - Exodus and probably David and Solomon are fiction, Nt is a further layer built on pre existing stories - like Psalm 22.

A multi-layered edifice.

WishboneDawn · 06-01-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Both - Exodus and probably David and Solomon are fiction, Nt is a further layer built on pre existing stories - like Psalm 22.

A multi-layered edifice.

I think all of the above have layers of fiction, I'm not prepared to believe they're complete fiction or wholey formed from pre-existing stories. Still. I'm off to read Psalm 22 now.

Clivedurdle · 06-03-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Both - Exodus and probably David and Solomon are fiction, Nt is a further layer built on pre existing stories - like Psalm 22.

A multi-layered edifice.

I think all of the above have layers of fiction, I'm not prepared to believe they're complete fiction or wholey formed from pre-existing stories. Still. I'm off to read Psalm 22 now.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=209079&page=3

See post 74.

Someone claimed my god why hast thou forsaken me as evidence of the historicity of Jesus - but that one does not work, and interestingly Psalm 22 can be read as the basis of the gospel story!

Which is more likely, God prophesied or someone used a pre existing writing in their story?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2007, 03:43 PM	#64
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Both - Exodus and probably David and Solomon are fiction, Nt is a further layer built on pre existing stories - like Psalm 22. A multi-layered edifice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.