MysticPhD

This is not intended to deal with the different canons extant or the reasons for them. This is an interpretation issue involving the intended audiences and purposes of the Old Testament and the New Testament. I maintain their purposes and applicable audiences are very different.

The OT clearly had a different purpose than the NT given the barbarity and general tenor of it. The OT was designed for a savage and barbaric species barely more than animals with virtually no self-control whose only source of control was in response to some authority figure . . . Pharoah, King, God whatever out of fear. Their primary motive to learn self-control was fear (beginning of wisdom). All the lessons of our species chronicled in the OT involved learning self-control through obedience to God (schoolmaster). The OT chronicles those lessons and our primitive ancestors' poor understanding of it all. But it mellowed our barbaric nature and produced a crop of humans with an increased capacity for self-control ("fields ripe for the harvest") capable of learning the real reason for it all.

The OT also prophesied a messenger (Messiah) who would reveal the true nature of God and the real reason for self-control . . . Agape Love. The OT provided everything we needed to identify and validate this Messiah when He arrived. The message was counter to what our barbaric ancestors believed about God and expected from this Messiah. He did not fulfill what they expected Him to fulfill . . . so the tragic and barbaric consequences of His efforts were inevitable during that era. Nevertheless, Christ did fulfill the spiritual aspects that the OT prophesied. He achieved what we couldn't . . . a human consciousness identical to the Holy Spirit of God in pure agape love for us all . . . even through the inevitable scourging and crucifixion by our barbaric ancestors.("Forgive them they know not what they do")

The NT was to proclaim this wondrous accomplishment, reveal the true nature of God and why He actually wanted us to learn self-control (not obedience) . . . to "love God and each other" and refrain from ANY unloving acts or behaviors, period. These two "new" (rephrased) commandments revealed the Spirit of the earlier "laws" and expanded their scope to ALL situations (not just ten or 613) where unloving acts or attitudes might exist. The NT in the hands of power hungry religious leaders was corrupted to conform to the earlier OT message of fear and obedience (schoolmaster) and reinforced with an Eternal Torment doctrine . . . completely ignoring what Christ died to accomplish . . . mercy NOT sacrifice. They have made the Gospel (Good News) void with "precepts and doctrines of men" retaining the ancient ignorance of blood sacrifice to a vengeful God.

Whatever your views of this line of interpretation might be, I applied a very rigorous hermeneutic (NOT Sola Scriptura) . . . not just what I didn't like or what I liked. Obviously many of you will disagree and defend the merged ancient ignorance of 2000 - 4000+ years ago as a sign of Faith. I have come to expect no less in this venue from either theists or atheists. In my view, my synthesis is consistent with science (NOT proven or validated and it has been soundly criticized as pseudo-science by my critics) and with scripture . . . no belief in magic or hocus pocus required.

stephan huller

Im not sure what divisions you are talking about . the first division should be that the pentateuch is separate and of higher authority than anything in the "OT." that isn't always made explicit enough. the pentateuch is essential; the prophetic writings superfluous

sotto voce

So this is what Paul meant by dividing? It's curious to borrow this highly abused, amateur, quirky English translation of his word, when he, of all people, was the greatest OT stick-in-the-mud of all time. The teaching that Paul did not base on the OT can be breathed out in a few seconds.

What Paul indicated to Timothy is that he should correctly interpret Scripture, all of it, not that he should decide which bits were ok and which were not. So let's not give any impression that the Bible supports and legitimates any sort of preferential treatment of its parts, either as discrete books, or as themes, pericopes or influences. People might see such variations (or imagine they do), but to hint that the Bible lends authority to such discrimination is blatant eisegesis. The scholarly way, the respectable way, is to approach all parts of the 66 books as worthy of careful, contextual, detailed study, as a great many actual, professional scholars have done, as witnessed by more volumes than would fill any university library with just one copy of their works. To attempt to by-pass this highly respected approach with the single word 'clearly' is assault on scholarship, is contemptuous of scholarship, and borders on the infantile.

The whole Bible tells evil people that a quick sword in the belly is nothing compared to what for them follows death, though a quick sword in the belly should be taken as warning indication of that certain fate. No body should suppose that the NT is nice and easy-going.

'If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.' Heb 10:26-27 NIV

Sheshbazzar

People that wish to properly divide The Bible, need become as humble children, not as so many braying jackasses.

To learn to appreciate and to employ the 'small things', and those 'things that are equal', and to with impartiality and equity employ perfect and just numbers, balances, proportions, and scale, discerning and employing the plummet and the building line of equity and perfect and full measures in all of their reasonings, that what they construct might be found upright, foursquare and enduring.

No one ever rightly DIVIDES the words of Scripture until as becomes little children, they first learn how to ADD, and how to SUBTRACT, and how to MULTIPLY their cyphers and their digits to arrive at impartial, correct, and inviolable answers.
Knowing from what they came, and to what they must apply.

Whosoever has ears to hear with let them hear, eyes to see with let them see, and a mind to learn with let them learn,
And then you will know.

Today, after so long of time; as it is said, Today if you will hear.




ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

aa5874

You may have been duped.

Please re-read the Short-Ending gMark.

The Jesus of the Short-Ending gMark has NOTHING about a Blood Sacrifice and Nothing about Universal Salvation.

The Jesus of sgMark did NOT even want the Jews to be converted and did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ.

And further in the Synoptics, there is NO statement that God loved people.

It was in gJohn, the LAST Gospel where it was claimed that God Loved people.

Examine the so-called words of Jesus in gMatthew.

The Jesus of gMark and gMatthew was NOT a Savior and did NOT Love the Jews.

The Jesus of gMark and gMatthew came to MAKE SURE the Jews were NOT Converted so that prophecy would be fulfilled--The Temple fell and thousands of Jews perished.

There is NO message of Love in the earliest Jesus stories.

The message of the early Jesus story is about VENGEANCE.

Isaiah 61:2 KJV

MysticPhD

Eisegesis is personal, but what would you call applying the extra-Biblical knowledge accumulated over the 2000-4000+ years since the material was recorded? We know so much more than our ancient ancestors who struggled to interpret the inspirations from God and record them in ways intelligible to their people. Imagine trying to stop an epidemic among a group of primitive people devoid of 21st century knowledge. You have in your possession the serums and knowledge of hygiene that the primitives need to stop the disastrous effects of the plague. You must somehow convince them to use the serum and follow your instructions about changing their hygiene habits to halt the spread of the disease. Short of providing them with 13 or more years of 21st century education, what can you do?

Obviously, your ministry must conform to their level of understanding and cultural mores. Absolution of "sins," and casting out "devils," are the techniques of ministry that might apply. Besides when you think about it, poor hygiene and "sinful behavior" are not that inconsistent, and an invading bacteria or virus is not that different from an "inhabiting devil" in its unseen character and overall deleterious effect on the person so "inhabited." Do not nitpick this analogy to death. It is simply to make the point that the level of knowledge of the audience determines how they must be made to understand what is communicated from a superior source (God).

I have taken "The scholarly way, the respectable way, is to approach all parts of the 66 books as worthy of careful, contextual, detailed study." As often happens, my choice of words seems to be less than favorably received. Perhaps my "clearly" (based on 40+ years of study and synthesis with extant science, not just scripture) was impolitic. My personal experiences of God in deep meditation also bias my certainty. It is not my intent to irritate or ruffle any feathers here. I did too good a job of that in my earlier foray here in defensiveness (apparently warranted IMO). But it was impolitic as well.

My ideas can always use rational, knowledgeable critique, hence my choice of this forum initially. I remain optimistic.

sotto voce

Then how it is that we can read yours? Eisegesis is error, either through ignorance or through deliberate misrepresentation, and tends to be well publicised; whereas exegesis often requires searching out. Much eisegesis is passed around with total innocence by people who have been taught it. But the people who teach them have no excuse, because they have access to texts in original languages. There are many thousands of American fundamentalists stomping around claiming to 'rightly divide' the word of truth, but they display either their ignorance or their crookedness just by using that phrase! Many of them would presumably like to do more than divide the Bible, they would like to rip up and burn the bloody thing.

Those responsible for the KJV, that you have effectively quoted, either did not know how to translate ὀρθοτομοῦντα correctly, or did not want to do so. The word does not mean to divide, but to make an honest cut; figuratively, to correctly teach or explain. So a modern translation may read: 'one who correctly teaches the message of God's truth' (GNB).

Even the century old ASV, that in academic circles became known as the 'standard Bible', corrected the KJV with 'handling aright the word of truth'. Surely we here can catch up with that, at the least?

Godfrey

Your primary error, in a broad sense (I'm not qualified to opine more specifically, but others here are) seems to be that you view the Bible as a cohesive work with a single purpose. Approaching any mystery with prejudice of this sort will tend to yield the answer you desire. Which your approach apparently has.

Instead of musing about who certain parts of the Bible were written for, I have found myself much more interested in who they were written by. Once you know that, it's easier to discern their intended audience and their intended effect, insomuch as you can know about the politics and cultural context of the day.

You say that your interpretation requires no belief in hocus-pocus, and yet your entire approach appears predicated on the assumption that the many disparate writings that make up the respective New and Old Testaments shared some common long-term intention of guiding mankind from barbarism to civilization. Which, given the span of time over which they were written, would necessitate a long-term focused intelligence (i.e. a God).

Instead, I think you should look at the Bible as a collection of disparate writings, churned out and redacted over time, which were often intended to address immediate concerns rather than some far-sighted divine goal.

Godfrey

Actually, the first division should be within the pentateuch itself, since it is comprised of four independent sources. I know we all know this... I'm just thinking that it doesn't really help illuminate the purpose of the writings to view "The Bible" as a whole, or to delineate it except by author and era/context (which helps us discern the "purpose" of each writing).

Not that I'm claiming expertise here.

sotto voce

One can invent along those lines, anyway.