What Is The Bible And What Does It Contain?

[Neon Genesis]

Perhaps when we discuss the views of how Jews saw the myths in the bible, it might help if we actually discuss what actual Jews have spoken about the subject. This is the view of the first century Jewish teacher Hillel on his interpretation of the scriptures

When asked by a non-Jew to relate all the Torah had to say while standing on one foot, Hillel replied, "Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do until you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary."

 

The Jewish philosopher Philo the Platonist believed the entire bible was an allegory rather than literal historical fact and Philo believed even the names of biblical characters had symbolic meaning.

[tariki]

Dear Derek,

 

Yes, we spoke of the lack of meaning for diversity in the "All begins and ends in One" philosophies of the East. And you had spoken of the latin aseities. However, rather than my rambling around with your 'may or may not's', I was looking for, hoping for actually, by asking a simple question, that it may be possible, I would get a simple answer.

I probably worked against myself by having written that which was beyond what was necessary.

 

However, as a result of the history of our back and forth verbal, yet friendly, saber rattling, I think I can safely assume (and I could be wrong) that you have yet to understand that the Jewish concept of truth is rooted in history. Particularly, when it was so simply declared in the first verse of the Bible- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It is really of no wonder that what follows could have the tendency to be even more difficult to absorb.

 

There's no danger in understanding that the Jewish writers understood truth to be verifiable by history and not at all fragile.

All the best to you as well,

 

David

David,

 

I think it is dangerous to safely assume anything around here.... .

 

As Voltaire once said, "All ancient histories are but convenient fictions." My own "convenient fiction" regarding the previous thread was that YOU spoke of a lack of meaning for diversity (within Eastern Faiths), but that nothing was finally resolved.

 

And as far as giving simple answers are concerned, I see no reason to enter your own world of "either/or", and leave my own of "both this and that"......This latter world I find far more existential and in keeping with my own history.

 

Personally, I see the Jewish concept of truth as being rooted more in belief in Divine guidance. History was the backdrop of how such guidance is appropriated. At first they (the Jewish people) understood the Divine as being a tribal diety, concerned for themselves alone, guiding them alone. Then some began to realise that the Divine was in fact the God of all. It does seem to me that many modern day Christians need to go through much the same process....but this time in terms of ceasing to restrict the efficacy of "salvation" to their own "narrow ways" and instead opening towards the other Faiths of the world. (To me what the Bible contains is in fact the message that "truth" is on-going)

 

For me, to be rooted in history is to be rooted in the "fear and trembling" of working out ones own salvation, within ones own life. This involves asking genuine questions, and indeed questioning everything....and often a letting go of "final answers". Dangerous ground, full of pitfalls, yet one that - in my experience - teaches a deep trust is Grace and the infinite love of the Divine rather than trust in my own allegiance to specific "truths".

 

My reference to the philosophical defence of the existence of "God" was to lead to the idea that what else exists cannot exist in quite the same way, else "God" would be understood as merely a being among other beings, and thus not God. It opens the way to GENUINE questions regarding what exists, and how it exists, and the realtionship between all "existent" things.

 

To finish, another quote from Merton. Apt for ALL of us - and I mean this with sincerity - and not aimed at any one person. Those who have eyes to see let them see, those who have ears to hear etc etc etc...

 

From.."Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander"

 

To start with one's ego identity and to try to bring that identity to terms with external reality by thinking, and then, having worked out practical principles, to act on reality from one privileged autonomous position - in order to bring it into line with an absolute good we have arrived at by thought: this is the way we become irresponsible. If reality is something we interpret and act on to suit our own concept of ourselves, we "respond" to nothing. We simply dictate our own terms, and "realism" consists in keeping the terms somewhat plausible. But this implies no real respect for reality, for other persons, for their needs, and in the end implies no real respect for ourselves, since, without bothering to question the deep mystery of our own identity, we fabricate a trifling and impertinent identity for ourselves with the bare scraps of experience that we find lying within immediate reach.

 

All the best

Derek

[minsocal]

David,

 

What is speech?

 

It is the intentional making of sounds.

 

How are sounds transmitted from point A to point B?

 

Through some form of matter as sound waves.

 

Thus God could only speak where there is matter.

 

I gather from you argument that you are a materialist.

 

minsocal

[davidk]

Hello Joseph,

You're in agreement, while changing the premise in the meantime.

Whether the time and space events that make up the subject matter of any written history actually becomes a written history, doesn't change the fact that there are such events that did happen in reality. No one was there to see creation and write the commentary, but by being here now we have the evidence of a beginning.

This is indicative of the Jewish writers view of truth.

Gen 1:1 is a foundational declaration. As mentioned before, this opening sentence of Genesis and the structure of what follows emphasize that we are dealing with history, just as much as if we were talking about ourselves at this moment, at a particular point of time and at a particular place. The Jewish concept of truth, is rooted in that which is historical. It is open to rationality and is not just an existential leap. The Bible must be read with that understanding of how it was written.

 

(By the way, the sun "rising" doesn't conflict with any scientific fact. You're mistake is forgiven.) (note: I'm sure of the point you tried to make but, you note the word- Concept; which is a universal mental picture of whatever may be known.)

--

To: Myron,

Perhaps I should state the question in more elemental terms: Begin with nothing and explain how everything came to be.

Planck Epoch assumes something, (space, matter{forces}, time) was already in existence.

 

I wonder; can you, without moving your lips, speak to yourself? If you're married, I would bet your wife can speak to you very clearly, without a sound!

--

 

Neon,

I can say Hillel was accurate. By his mentioning the second of the great commandments there is necessarily an assumption of the first. Remember, he was rather short on time. I know you may not understand this, but, the first is what gives meaning to the second.

--

 

Derek,

Interesting that you should say in the middle of this that, "...final answers". ... - in my experience - teaches a deep trust is Grace and the infinite love of the Divine rather than trust in my own allegiance to specific 'truths'."

I concur, with but one thing. And that is that: final answers are specific truths. To be clear, I'll say it this way: "final answers". ... - in my experience - teaches a deep trust in Grace and the infinite love of the Divine rather than trusting myself solely for the answers.

It's refreshing that you should give "the Divine" infinite personality traits.

 

In your Bystander post, it mentions what I have: that it is by our effort to be automomous that causes all our problems. I think it an excellent addition to our discussion. Thanks,

 

God's Grace to y'all,

Davidk

[tariki]

Hello Joseph,

You're in agreement, while changing the premise in the meantime.

Whether the time and space events that make up the subject matter of any written history actually becomes a written history, doesn't change the fact that there are such events that did happen in reality. No one was there to see creation and write the commentary, but by being here now we have the evidence of a beginning.

This is indicative of the Jewish writers view of truth.

Gen 1:1 is a foundational declaration. As mentioned before, this opening sentence of Genesis and the structure of what follows emphasize that we are dealing with history, just as much as if we were talking about ourselves at this moment, at a particular point of time and at a particular place. The Jewish concept of truth, is rooted in that which is historical. It is open to rationality and is not just an existential leap. The Bible must be read with that understanding of how it was written.

 

(By the way, the sun "rising" doesn't conflict with any scientific fact. You're mistake is forgiven.) (note: I'm sure of the point you tried to make but, you note the word- Concept; which is a universal mental picture of whatever may be known.)

--

To: Myron,

Perhaps I should state the question in more elemental terms: Begin with nothing and explain how everything came to be.

Planck Epoch assumes something, (space, matter{forces}, time) was already in existence.

 

I wonder; can you, without moving your lips, speak to yourself? If you're married, I would bet your wife can speak to you very clearly, without a sound!

--

 

Neon,

I can say Hillel was accurate. By his mentioning the second of the great commandments there is necessarily an assumption of the first. Remember, he was rather short on time. I know you may not understand this, but, the first is what gives meaning to the second.

--

 

Derek,

Interesting that you should say in the middle of this that, "...final answers". ... - in my experience - teaches a deep trust is Grace and the infinite love of the Divine rather than trust in my own allegiance to specific 'truths'."

I concur, with but one thing. And that is that: final answers are specific truths. To be clear, I'll say it this way: "final answers". ... - in my experience - teaches a deep trust in Grace and the infinite love of the Divine rather than trusting myself solely for the answers.

It's refreshing that you should give "the Divine" infinite personality traits.

 

In your Bystander post, it mentions what I have: that it is by our effort to be automomous that causes all our problems. I think it an excellent addition to our discussion. Thanks,

 

God's Grace to y'all,

Davidk

 

David,

 

Surely you realised that by putting the words "final answers" in apostrophies I was in fact questioning the existence of them in the sense you would claim? Really.............I'm afraid from my own perspective you are intent on twisting anything said merely to suit your own pre-ordained purpose and thus preclude any genuine questioning of your own position in any way, shape or form. You in fact seem to come to a conclusion the exact polar opposite of the point I was making. For when you say "instead of trusting myself solely for the answers" you demonstrate a complete lack of any form of comprehension or grasp of the "no-self" (anatta) concept, or indeed the via negativa of Christian Mysticism.

 

 

As with.....It's refreshing that you should give "the Divine" infinite personality traits A friendly concession to the nature of the Forum I am on is again grasped as some sort of support of your own position.

 

 

And I would have to say that if all you have seen and garnered from Merton's words is to grasp at the word "autonomous", see it as the source of all problems..........once again, this to see your own position supported, then perhaps you are not one with the eyes to see, the ears to hear. Perhaps "self-judgement" and deep questioning are not to every bodies likening?

 

As far as suns rising or whatever, just as a comical aside, a few words from Luther, who trusted in the Bible....

 

 

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. ~ Table Talk

 

 

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

 

Well, yes, we all know better now don't we? Luther was just a "child of his age". Yet just how many more things will any "infallibilist" ( a new word? ) be made to withdraw as human knowldege progresses further?

 

And again, after gleaning my post for any scrap or word that can be claimed as support for your own position, the rest is cast aside as so much superfluous waffle.

 

Well, yes, I call it waffle myself at times, but...........

 

Thats about it,

Over and out unless things change somewhat!

All the best

Derek

[minsocal]

Hello Joseph,

--

To: Myron,

Perhaps I should state the question in more elemental terms: Begin with nothing and explain how everything came to be.

Planck Epoch assumes something, (space, matter{forces}, time) was already in existence.

 

I wonder; can you, without moving your lips, speak to yourself? If you're married, I would bet your wife can speak to you very clearly, without a sound!

--

Davidk

 

Energy is NO THING .... we are done.

[davidk]

'Energy is NO THING .... we are done.

With all due repect Myron,

Energy is not a substance, but is the property of matter, the motion of particles. No matter- no energy.

 

Something from nothing- Sorry, but, it's simply an argument that cannot be sustained.

--

 

Well Derek, may I offer my apologies for agreeing with you through my error.

 

Your concession language of "Grace and the infinite love of the Divine" does ascribe to "the Divine" the distinctly personal traits of grace and love. However, when considering any future concessions while speaking of "the Divine", may I suggest you concede with words other than love and grace, to avoid future confusions that may lead someone to think you believe God has any personal attributes.

 

I know it's risky, but I am intrigued by another you've penned. "My reference to the philosophical defence of the existence of "God" was to lead to the idea that what else exists cannot exist in quite the same way, else "God" would be understood as merely a being among other beings, and thus not God. It opens the way to GENUINE questions regarding what exists, and how it exists, and the realtionship between all "existent" things."

Are you saying that God is substantively different from all else and that by recognizing those difference it can help explain what, how, and why things exist and their relationships?

 

If this is indeed what you said, I'm surprised you are so taken aback by the questions pertaining to Gen 1:1; of God having the position, in the God/all else relationship, as the creator, in the view of the Jewish writers.

 

Anyway, answer if you wish. All the best back to you,

 

Davidk

[tariki]

With all due repect Myron,

Energy is not a substance, but is the property of matter, the motion of particles. No matter- no energy.

 

Something from nothing- Sorry, but, it's simply an argument that cannot be sustained.

--

 

Well Derek, may I offer my apologies for agreeing with you through my error.

 

Your concession language of "Grace and the infinite love of the Divine" does ascribe to "the Divine" the distinctly personal traits of grace and love. However, when considering any future concessions while speaking of "the Divine", may I suggest you concede with words other than love and grace, to avoid future confusions that may lead someone to think you believe God has any personal attributes.

 

I know it's risky, but I am intrigued by another you've penned. "My reference to the philosophical defence of the existence of "God" was to lead to the idea that what else exists cannot exist in quite the same way, else "God" would be understood as merely a being among other beings, and thus not God. It opens the way to GENUINE questions regarding what exists, and how it exists, and the realtionship between all "existent" things."

Are you saying that God is substantively different from all else and that by recognizing those difference it can help explain what, how, and why things exist and their relationships?

 

If this is indeed what you said, I'm surprised you are so taken aback by the questions pertaining to Gen 1:1; of God having the position, in the God/all else relationship, as the creator, in the view of the Jewish writers.

 

Anyway, answer if you wish. All the best back to you,

 

Davidk

 

David,

 

Grace and love are used often by those of the Pure Land Buddhist Faith who have entered via the Western Faiths. This as they explore - like myself - such words, and the experience of them, within the structure of a "non-dual" position. Obviously, this is a position you are not prepared to concede can exist. That argument between us is done and dusted and I have no wish to pursue it. But I'll continue to use whatever words I want when I experience their living truth within my own existential reality.

 

As far as the rest, I am saying nothing except to implore others to actually begin to ask GENUINE QUESTIONS and not just questions designed to gain the answers they have already preordained and decided upon. As the Faiths meet in our multi-cultural world I believe we are duty bound to ask such questions, given the tragic history of each as they insist upon their own unique correctness, and their ways as the sole means of "salvation".

 

Genuine questions.

 

As you, in my eyes, repeatable ignore any part of any post that actually constitutes a challenge to your own heart felt beliefs and opinions, I will now say here and now that you may now debate onwards without my contribution in any way, shape or form.

 

All the best

Derek

[Neon Genesis]

The Jewish concept of truth, is rooted in that which is historical. It is open to rationality and is not just an existential leap. The Bible must be read with that understanding of how it was written.

 

You keep claiming to understand the way Jews see the bible and the Genesis creation account as if you are an expert on Judaism but you never back your claims up with any sources. You never post any quotes by actual Jews or any surveys that show what Jews think about their scripture. You merely assert that since you believe the bible is literal history, the Jews must also believe that too and that you seem to think you alone understand the Jewish interpretation of scripture. But if we look at this survey by the Pew Forum, the vast majority of Jews accept evolution and don't believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation account. According to this survey,

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf 77% of American Jews accept evolution and only 17% of Jews don't believe in it. There is simply no evidence the majority of Jews see the Genesis creation account as truth rooted in history.

Religious differences on this issue are stark. At least seven-in-ten members of evangelical

Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the

best explanation for the development of human life, while large majorities of Catholics, Jews,

Buddhists, Hindus and the unaffiliated agree that evolution best explains the development of life

on earth.

[JosephM]

Your concession language of "Grace and the infinite love of the Divine" does ascribe to "the Divine" the distinctly personal traits of grace and love. However, when considering any future concessions while speaking of "the Divine", may I suggest you concede with words other than love and grace, to avoid future confusions that may lead someone to think you believe God has any personal attributes.

 

Davidk,

 

I know you are speaking to Derek here but your pattern seems most obvious to me also. I believe Derek has made his position quite clear, at least in my view. As Derek said, (and it seems obvious to me also,) "that you repeatably ignore any part of any post that actually constitutes a challenge to your own heart felt beliefs and opinions." Also, in my view, his ascribing infinite love and grace to the divine in no way concedes anything or makes a concession as you infer as relates to this thread topic.

 

Frankly i have read this thread through more times than i have any other. I have attempted to try very hard to understand what you are really trying to say. I have miserably failed to understand anything other than to read assertions without really understanding any logical foundation or addressing of the concerns of others posed. I repeatedly get lost in your either or logic statements and pulling things that seem to me out of context. Perhaps i also use a different dictionary than you. Anyway, i still don't know why you believe as you do and have lost interest in trying to understand unless you take a different or more simple approach.

 

The question of this thread is not how to read the Bible or the profoundness of Genesis 1:1 or any other statement that is obvious or can be found in most any writing or is obviously self evident. The real question is "What is the Bible and what does it contain" which raises further questions such as if it contains a completely accurate record given by God to us through the pen of God's chosen Jewish writers without error or contradictions then what is it that leads you to that conclusion. People have made it clear what leads them to a different conclusion and referenced numerous other scholars and writers. The only thing i can grasp that leads you to that conclusion is that you find such statements as "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" and some other statements God-breathed and conclude that since they are true to you then one must read the whole Bible as all true. While i can pick statements out of other holy books to indicate true statements you will just reply, as you have to me in the past, that they are in agreement with your infallible Bible. Where others conclude that Jewish history as written in the Bible and referenced by other scholars and people who have studied that history contains myth and history slanted to the justification of the writers and also use common sense , knowing the hearts of men capable of such deeds, you offer nothing but the assertion that Jewish history is true.

 

And so will you continue to seem to circle to me or will you be more direct and try to answer the real questions of this thread for me? If you have already and i just missed it even after repeated readings, forgive my ignorance.

 

If not, i am done also.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[minsocal]

Point 6

 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

 

As simple as this statement appears, it deserves careful consideration, especially when condsidering the topic of this thread. Is it reasonable to expect the bible to be complete and accurate? I don't think so. On the other hand, I am unwilling to throw it out based on inconsistencies. On the contrary, it tells a lot about who we are and ... that we are not God.

 

Back to Point 6. Are we willing to ask questions that lead to answers we might not like? What, other than pride, would keep us from doing so? The answer is fairly complex, but there are some relatively simple ways to demonstrate the problem. I like this example because it can be demonstrated very easily in a small group (back to that in a moment). Here is the concept:

 

"Frederic Bartlett ... Known for memory schema (psychology)

 

One of his most famous studies was on the cognitive and social processes of remembering. He composed a series of short fables (the best known was called The War of the Ghosts[1]), each of which comprised a sequence of events which were ostensibly logical but subtly illogical, and there were several discreet non-sequiturs. He would recite this story to subjects, then later (sometimes much later) ask them to recall as much of it as possible. He discovered that most people found it extremely difficult to recall the story exactly, even after repeated readings, and hypothesised that, where the elements of the story failed to fit into the schemata of the listener, these elements were omitted from the recollection, or transformed into more familiar forms[2]." (emphasis added)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Bartlett

 

I have seen this experiment replicated many times now. All that is needed is a copy of "The War of the Ghosts" and a group of twenty or so people. Take five volunteers and send four out of the room while "The War of the Ghosts is read to the group and the first volunteer. Then have the first volunteer leave the room and tell the story to the second volunteer, with instructions to tell the story to the third volunteer and so on to the fifth volunteer. When that is done, have the volunteers return and each recite the story back to the group in the order of transmission. Invariably, what you hear recited back becomes more and more distorted as you pass through the order of transmission to the point that the last recitation is almost unrecognizable.

 

Perhaps this is worth considering when we tell our stories to each other?

[Neon Genesis]

You don't even need a copy of The War Of The Ghosts to see this happening. There's a children's game known either as Chinese Whisperers or as Telephone as it is more commonly known in the U.S. The game is played by lining up a group of children. One child at the front of the line tells the other child a message, that child passes the message on to the child next to them, and so on, until they get to the end. By the time you get to the end of the line, the message is entirely different than what you started with either because kids misremembered the story when passing it on or because a child purposely changed the story.

[davidk]

Well, Derek, Is Gen 1:1 true or not?

Is that not a genuine question? I'll not ask you again.

 

But, the way I saw your responses to it:

 

It looked as if you couldn't believe Gen 1:1 to be true. But by your having pointed to the latin aseities, as viewed in Catholicism, it seemed you believed God is the only self-existent, which left me puzzled as to why you may not have considered God the primary cause of all else.

However, if it is that you mean by the Latin aseities that the universe is self-existent, then I believe you have made an existential leap of faith; because the "Everything from nothing" is an unsustainable argument.

--

Nearly every part of every post challenges my position.

I was anticipating that we may be able find some kernal of agreement; i.e., I had thought there was agreement in knowing that the universe and morality do exist. But it seems what you and I mean by existence may or may not be the same.

 

For another example- the Bystander paragraph.

When I susbstantially agreed with it- you appeared to get angry and frustrated with me. What on earth for?

It must be assumed that the author used the word 'autonomous' in his piece for a reason. To ignore that, disrespects what the author was trying to say, as if one knew more of what he wanted to say than he did. Take the word out and the meaning of the paragraph changes. (Can I expect that this is how you read the Bible, too?)

Do you find that when I can (or try to) agree with what you've said, or have brought to the table from others, so distasteful that it angers you?

 

We seemed to agree that love and grace do exist, but why such animus toward my saying they are traits of personality? If you don't wish to say God exhibits any traits exclusive to personality, then it is simply that other words have to be used. That shouldn't be considered an insult by any stretch of the imagination. If you know of any way for man to love and show grace without God having such traits first, I'm open to hearing your concepts. That is unless that 'question' is not genuine.

 

To say that I don't think your faith in a "non-dual" position exists, is ridiculous. I personally don't agree with its premises, but that doesn't suppose I think such a thought position as yours doesn't exist.

 

In conclusion: We both see things from our perspectives, but your anger over the differences seems to need some time away from these pages.

 

You've been stimulating. Thanks for the conversation.

 

Davidk

[davidk]

Neon,

I've never claimed to understand the way any modern Jew reads Scripture.

The structure of what is written in the Bible is the evidence that the Jewish writers in scripture understood that truth is grounded in historical fact.

Do you really think the majority of modern practicing Jews, don't believe God is the Creator (Gen 1:1)?

 

The question at hand is about Gen 1:1, It was asked of you. Not to the Jews or the scientists. You.

Do you believe that Gen 1:1 is true or false?

Don't look around to see what everyone else is saying. What do you believe?

...

[minsocal]

In keeping with the theme "What is the Bible and what does it contain", there are more questions worthing of admission.

 

Why is it that we encourage children to think with fantasic stories? Or, why do children develop fantastic stories? The two questions are not the same, although they are related. Yes, it is true that fantastic stories can be entertaining. But, why do adults then ask the child "What is the moral of the story? Why then, as adults, do we not ask the same question of our own stories? When we find it said in the Bible that we should "be like children", perhaps this is what the authors intended.

 

In a moral sense, what is going on in a fantastic story "with a moral?" Many researchers now believe that children use these stories to explore the boundaries of moral implications. What if a snake could talk? Well, the snake can say things we might be too reluctant to explore in direct language, and so on.

 

...

 

Early in the development of what we now call a "progressive" perspective, some groups began to realize that there is no necessary and sufficient connection between the Enlightemnent (including evolution) and atheism. Where Kant sought to prove that "high" reason could not provide a proof that God exists (the "A" critiques), he then turned around and showed that in the realm of practical reason it was possible (the "B" critiques). The second notion found its way into early progressive thought and is found explicitly in Process Theology.

[davidk]

Joseph,

Nearly every part of every post is challenging my belief and opinion.

 

The question of this thread (What is, and what is contained in, the Bible?) cannot be answered without understanding the how's, the why's, etc. If you can't understand that if Genesis 1:1 were not true, then the rest of Scripture would lack for any real meaning; if you're unable to understand the viewpont about whether Gen 1:1 is true or not, how do you expect to understand what is contained in the rest of what is written? How you read Scripture is to understand what the Bible is and what it contains. Understand the writers viewpoint.

If you can't believe their viewpoint is what I suggest it is, what do you believe is their viewpoint?

Does this 'circle' confuse you?

I'll answer any question you wish to pose to me, if I can determine it apporpriate to my topic. I'll listen to any argument in your favor. Keep it brief.

 

 

Davidk

[Neon Genesis]

Neon,

I've never claimed to understand the way any modern Jew reads Scripture.

The structure of what is written in the Bible is the evidence that the Jewish writers in scripture understood that truth is grounded in historical fact.

Do you really think the majority of modern practicing Jews, don't believe God is the Creator (Gen 1:1)?

 

The question at hand is about Gen 1:1, It was asked of you. Not to the Jews or the scientists. You.

Do you believe that Gen 1:1 is true or false?

Don't look around to see what everyone else is saying. What do you believe?

...

In one breath you claim you're not claiming to understand the way Jews read scripture then turn around claim to understand the way Jews understand Genesis 1:1. And when did I say modern day Jews don't believe in God as the creator? I said the majority of modern day Jews believe God created the universe using evolution and that the Genesis creation account is allegorical. Or are you trying to claim that evolution is incompatible with theism and are trying to equate evolution with atheism?

[JosephM]

Joseph,

Nearly every part of every post is challenging my belief and opinion.

 

The question of this thread (What is, and what is contained in, the Bible?) cannot be answered without understanding the how's, the why's, etc. If you can't understand that if Genesis 1:1 were not true, then the rest of Scripture would lack for any real meaning; if you're unable to understand the viewpont about whether Gen 1:1 is true or not, how do you expect to understand what is contained in the rest of what is written? How you read Scripture is to understand what the Bible is and what it contains. Understand the writers viewpoint.

If you can't believe their viewpoint is what I suggest it is, what do you believe is their viewpoint?

Does this 'circle' confuse you?

I'll answer any question you wish to pose to me, if I can determine it apporpriate to my topic. I'll listen to any argument in your favor. Keep it brief.

 

 

Davidk

 

Thanks for the offer David. I'll pass on this circle. My viewpoint has been made clear and its obvious to me form this post that circles is all i will get from you at this time.

 

Thanks again and Best wishes,

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

David

 

We worried this topic perhaps to death.

 

if Genesis 1:1 were not true, then the rest of Scripture would lack for any real meaning

 

But for me, it seems that historical fact is confused with spiritual truth and I am leery of any claim that if this verse or that verse is not true then ALL of the Bible has no meaning but you know how I feel about words.

 

Take Care

Dutch

[davidk]

Well, it's been interesting. It also has been enlightening, with a vivid exposition of a (not anyone in particular) progressive mindset, where truth is seen as relative rather than absolute.

 

This progressive belief, "there are no absolutes", is somehow still not understood for what it is- an absolute!

 

It seems that this line of progressive thought decries any thoughts that the Jewish writers had of a Creation by God, particulary a personal and infinite God. Such a Creation is seen as a fundamentalist Christian absolute. By all of the previous posts, it seems glaringly apparent what the progressive view is of Fundamentalists. In the meantime, many progressives are still unaware they are they're arguing from their own set of absolutes; i.e.; there are no absolutes.

--

 

The Jewish writers, in the Bible, believed that if objective truths did not absolutely exist, then everything would cease to exist.

 

In the Bible, the Jewish writers begin before the heavens and the earth, with God, who existed before the creation. This Creation was understood by the Jewish writers to be the truthful evidence of an infinite God who is there. They believed that what was created also provides the recognizable evidence of the truth of creations own finite nature.

 

What continuously fails to be understood in progressive circles, that it is not about whether anyone else believes the Bible is rooted in history or not, it is that the writers did believe it, and that what is written in the Bile demonstrates the fact that they had such belief.

 

By attributing God with a personal attribute (i.e.; God created) the Jewish writers revealed that they recognized and believed God is a God with personality. They knew that man's personality could not be explained by anything but by a source that first had it to give. (In science it's called Cause and Effect. The Bible explains it as- in His own image.)

 

They believed that this infinite and personal, creator God was the only feasable answer for what truly and historically existed; and that this answer can be truly known, because it was God who communicated these truths to Man.

 

Given this viewpoint of the Jewish writers, that God is the infinite and personal, creator, it would be reasonable to assume that- from their viewpoint- God would be perfectly capable of communicating with man.

 

The structure of the rest of the Bible rests on these truths of the Jewish writers. The Bible does not divert from this most basic of premises as concerning what the Bible is and contains.

 

If the argument always seems to circle back to these truths about the Jewish writers, it is because it appears most progressive thought cannot fathom what the Bible truly is, or contains, and they have to constantly be reminded that it is not by the progressive concept of truth that the Bible was written, but by the Jewish writers concept of truth.

 

God's Grace to you all,

 

Davidk

[Guest billmc]

If the argument always seems to circle back to these truths about the Jewish writers, it is because it appears most progressive thought cannot fathom what the Bible truly is, or contains, and they have to constantly be reminded that it is not by the progressive concept of truth that the Bible was written, but by the Jewish writers concept of truth.

 

Davidk, I think you have touched on the very point which, for me, would be the point of contention. As a 'progressive', I would very much agree that the Bible was written from the Jewish writers' concepts of truth. I don't deny that at all.

 

But the fundamentalists that I have known (and having been one myself) take the added step of saying that the Jewish writer's concepts of truth are God's concepts or understanding of truth. To me, that is where the difference lies. I would say that the Bible is a Jewish library of their concepts and understandings of God and, therefore, limited to human understandings and human expressions of the Divine. The fundamentalists might say that the Bible is a record of God's understandings of himself dictated through the Jewish people. In my view, the Jewish writers are telling their story of God. The fundamentalist view of my youth said that there is nothing of the Jewish writers' opinions and concepts of truth in the Bible, only God's own words.

[davidk]

Billmc,

Thank you, it's refreshing to receive a post which can allow for discussion.

--

 

Your language seems to reflect an understanding that the context of this "library of their concepts and understandings of God" is dependant upon real time and space events. It seems to see that this reason is why the early Bible (Old Testament) is considered Jewish history. A point not yet contested, as far as I know. Not that it is an exhaustive historical account, but is considered true because what we find are considered by and large, historical accounts. Even if what we've yet to verify ourselves, today, the writers wrote of with the insistence that they are a record of historical events.

 

I can think of a no more succinct way to express this. The Jewish concept is that truth is rooted in space and time, upon history, because it is concerned with that which is open to discussion and rationality, and not just an existential leap.

--

 

I'm a little uncertain about your "But the fundamentalists..." follow up.

May I ask; if the 'added step' is their understanding that the Jewish writers' concept of truth is God's truth; then... (?), isn't that 'added step' essentially the same view as the Jewish writer's? That God existence is true, and truly verifiable, that the evidence is in His creation, which exists as a real space and time universe.

--

 

I can't answer for the fundamentalists of your youth, but I honestly know of none with that view.

 

Thanks again for your calm and honest response to this thread,

Davidk

---

---

 

 

 

Dear Neon,

Simply, do you believe Gen 1:1 is true? Please, without argumentation, answer in your own words. Your opinion is important and one we should be able to honestly and rationaly discuss.

---

 

Dutch,

I am still unsure of some of the things you write.

If I'm reading you correctly, you've implied a belief that the spiritual is incompatable with the historical.

So by believing they are compatable, there's the unintentional conclusion that, Jesus and the Jewish writers were confused.

If I did not read you correctly, then it becomes pointless and needs no more discussion.

 

 

I agree that we should not just pick any verse out of its context and try to establish it as foundational for the rest of the Bible.

However, not just any verse was picked to base the Structure of all scripture on.

This first verse has a specific purpose in Jewish writing. It stands alone as to what establishes the foundational structure for what the rest of the Bible is built upon, for what it is, and for what it contains. If this particular verse, Gen 1:1, is untrue and so can be eliminated without prejudice; then where, in your opinion, does that leave the rest of the Biblical text?

 

 

Davidk

[Guest billmc]

Your language seems to reflect an understanding that the context of this "library of their concepts and understandings of God" is dependant upon real time and space events. It seems to see that this reason is why the early Bible (Old Testament) is considered Jewish history.

 

This is a stronger assertion than I would make, Davidk. I'll grant that the Jewish people had a strong sense of tradition, of being tied to their ancestors and their identity as 'the people of God.' This is one of the reasons, IMO, that the writers of the gospels and Paul try to argue Jesus' status as messiah from the OT scriptures. But I find it doubtful that they based their stories, their library, on what you would call 'real time and space events', although certain OT accounts do indeed appear to be of the 'this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened' style of story-telling. My reading of the scriptures demonstrate to me that the ancient Jewish scribes often get events out of sequence with each other, mixing up generations, rulers, names of nations, etc. So I tend to think that they mixed their story-telling with actual happenings in order to preserve, not a sequence of historical events, but the meaning of their relationship to God and their purpose as a people.

 

Allow me, if you will, a quick illustration. Take Genesis 1 and 2 for example. If we interpret these chapters as literal historical events, they are irreconcilable. In one chapter, the animals are created first, before Adam. In the other chapter, Adam is created first, before the animals. So to bang these two chapters against each other in the context of trying to make historical sense of them leads us to conclude that 'the Bible is full of contraditiction', as some would say. But if we interpret them in the framework, not of history, but of meaning, we see that one chapter focuses on humanity being God's greatest manifestation of his glory on earth, while the other chapter focuses on the human need to find companionship.

 

Not that it is an exhaustive historical account, but is considered true because what we find are considered by and large, historical accounts.

 

IMO, that is a misunderstanding of how the ancient Jews looked at truth. We, as moderns, equate truth with historicity. That is a modern approach to epistomology. But the ancient Jews equated truth with meaning. They felt free to 'move things around' in their stories in order to bring out the meaning they felt was important. If you doubt my assertion, look into Jewish midrash. No matter how much (or how little) actual history might be behind a Jewish story, they felt free to modify their stories to make a certain point. This way of story-telling makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get at what 'historically happened.'

 

May I ask; if the 'added step' is their understanding that the Jewish writers' concept of truth is God's truth; then... (?), isn't that 'added step' essentially the same view as the Jewish writer's?

 

Not necessary, at least not in the way that fundamentalists describe it. Fundamentalists describe the entire Bible as inerrant and infallible, as the very words of God. While Paul tells Timothy that the OT scriptures are 'inspired' (God-breathed), he doesn't describe the scriptures as inerrant or infallible. In fact, the Bible has traditional been called 'the Word (singular) of God', not 'the Words (plural) of God.'

 

'God-breathed' does not mean inerrant and infallible. Adam was, according to the text, 'God-breathed', but that did not make him inerrant and infallible. Many of the Jewish prophets were 'God-breathed' or annointed or had the Spirit resting on them, yet they were not infallible and inerrant. So claiming that the scriptures, in being inspired, means that they are inerrant and infallible is, IMO, an unwarranted assertion based, ultimately, in the lack of trusting in God's Spirit to speak to us today.

 

Thanks for listening.

[Guest billmc]

Davidk, I wasn't able to edit my last post (I hate this feature about this board), but I wanted to say:

 

Lastly, no religious writing that I know of approaches the subject from the stance of, "The following contains errors, mistakes, embellishments, and distortions." It is the nature of the religious mindset, Jewish or otherwise, to think that it is always conveying truth, to think that we are right, attempting to speak for God. Post-modernity considers how wrong we and our religious writings have been. We seek to be more humble about our understands of truth and assertions about it. I've said this before, but there is reality as God knows it (Truth) and then there is reality as we experience it (truth). Problems (and wars) arise when we think our truth is the Truth.

 

Apended at 10:20PM at the request of BillMC by JosephM

 

We can also consider the ‘inspiration’ of Jesus’ disciples. The gospels say that Jesus breathed on them and told them to receive the Spirit. Another passage says that he told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit to anoint them. On the Day of Pentecost, according to the book of Acts, the Spirit was ‘inspired’ on each one of them and the rest of the book tells of various people being likewise ‘inspired’ by God’s Spirit. Did these ‘inspirations’ of the Spirit into their lives make these disciples and other early followers of Christ infallible? Did it make them inerrant? Certainly not. Paul called Peter out on his hypocrisy concerning eating with the Gentiles. Paul, IMO (no debate, please), still held the same anti-women and pro-slavery views that he held to as a Pharisee. John of Patmos envisions Jesus in a completely different role compared to how he is portrayed in the gospels; Revelation’s Jesus comes to make war, he carries a sword, he is out to make his enemies suffer.

IMO, being ‘inspired’, whether referring to scripture or to people, is no guarantee of inerrancy and infallibility. Even if such a notion where thought of to apply to the scriptures, history has proven time and again that we have humans, even Christians who claim the same Spirit, have no guarantee that we are interpreting the scriptures correctly.

So while this might have seemed to drift from what you asked me, it still points to the notion that the Bible is filled with Jewish stories centered around their experiences and identification with God. Even the gospels are four different views and interpretations of Jesus, with some views having a lot of similarities but with others having a great deal of differences. God doesn’t seem to be much bothered by our sloppiness. He seems to like variety. As a progressive, I tend to think that perhaps God really desires this whole ‘us with him’ thing. And while it may not be your experience with fundamentalism, it’s been my experience that fundamentalism wants to remove the human component from the scriptures and from Jesus himself, distrusting anything human. It seems to constantly work for the separation of humanity and divinity when, perhaps, divinity has sought union all along.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

This progressive belief, "there are no absolutes", is somehow still not understood for what it is- an absolute!

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy where everything is either always only 100% absolute or it must be 100% relative. There are some things that exist which are absolutes. 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute fact that will never change no matter how many times you solve it. Evolution is a proven objective scientific fact. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is an objectively proven scientific fact. But there are also things which are relative. The belief that slavery is immoral is relative and changes with the culture and evolves with time. The belief that circumcision is a required commandment by God is also relative and changes with the times. The belief that Christian women should wear veils and Christian men shouldn't wear long hair is relative with the culture and with the times. Absolutes do exist but that doesn't mean there is noting relative either.

 

 

The Jewish writers, in the Bible, believed that if objective truths did not absolutely exist, then everything would cease to exist.

Where in the bible does it say this?

 

Dear Neon,

Simply, do you believe Gen 1:1 is true? Please, without argumentation, answer in your own words. Your opinion is important and one we should be able to honestly and rationaly discuss.

It depends on how you define God.