Can one read the Bible, objectively?

[Kenny]

Yes, the right answers led me to being an atheist.

And yet, the right answers brought atheists to Christianity.

My point is simply this, your statements are subjective and hardly all encompassing or statements of truth.

"When I finally opened my mind and began to read the bible objectively," - Objective in your mind doesn't translate into "objective".

 

[Kemosloby]

Doesn't really answer my question. So what you figuratively want is someone to read the Bible with an 'open mind,' that is, without prejudging it.

If they do this, without prejudging it, but after reading it, they DON'T believe it to be the True and Complete Word of God, what is it you say of them?

That they weren't open minded? That they are being deceived by atheists and/or the Devil? That they are too stupid to see what is clearly there?

What advice do you have for a seeker who has read the Bible thoroughly and completely, being open to the possibility of it being the Word of God, but still comes away unconvinced?

I don't know, I picked it up the first time. I guess they will have to reread it. Maybe get the Geneva Bible, that's the one I used. I think it a better quality translation than others, which is very beneficial to the reader.

 

[Kenny]

What advice do you have for a seeker who has read the Bible thoroughly and completely, being open to the possibility of it being the Word of God, but still comes away unconvinced?

I usually say "OK" -- keep asking questions if you are interested. Or "What part do you have doubts about?"

Usually (not always) it is simply that they don't understand.

 

[Deidre]

I'm reading Genesis right now, and processing it. Reading it objectively has opened my mind to one thing, that it could have been written by ''real'' people, yet it still doesn't conclude anything more than that for me, right now. Moses is thought to be the original ''author,'' and let's say he felt that God was telling him to write all of that, it's possible that his experience felt real to him. (And to others who wrote the Gospels, for example, etc)

It doesn't mean everyone on earth who reads it should believe it, but it at least objectively means to me, that people wanted to believe in something centuries ago, like we still do today. That's what is so interesting, that there were people throughout the ages who disbelieved and others who believed in some type of a god, and we still do this, today. They debated back then, too. We just have fancy forums like this one to chat about it all.

So, objectively speaking, that's where I'm at with Genesis right now.

 

[corynski]

Yes, I do.

Hmm...... Syncretic, how do you distinguish between fact and fiction in your thinking, and in the Bible? What are your standards of objectivity? I'm confused as to why you insist on making atheism more than it is. Atheism means without a belief in a god, we have no beliefs in any gods because there seems to be no objective way to determine the reality of a god. I think I live in only one reality, but from what I'm reading here, many prefer to pretend to other realities..... realities that seem to have no cause and effect structure.

 

[Shiranui117]

Since I find value in a variety of faiths and religions, I've decided to read some ancient texts, one such text being the Bible (again). When I've read it in the past, I was a practicing Christian, so I wonder if it's possible to read the Bible objectively and still be moved to believing that it holds truths for our lives? Thoughts?

How can we read anything objectively when it's colored by our life experiences, our culture, heritage, current events, what's been on our minds, what's been happening in our lives, what we've eaten in the last 24 hours and how hung over we are from last night or 3 hours ago?

 

[columbus]

When I've read it in the past, I was a practicing Christian, so I wonder if it's possible to read the Bible objectively and still be moved to believing that it holds truths for our lives? Thoughts?

I don't think it's possible for a modern westerner to read the Bible objectively. At least, not if by objectively you mean "understood as intended by the original authors and audience". That doesn't mean it cannot hold truths that are still good today, but we cannot help reading it through a modern lens. One with dramatically different ethics and worldview and understanding of reality. It was written in a foreign language by primitive people who did not see the world as we do. Idiomatic language that made perfect sense to them has long been lost. Concepts that we take for granted weren't even thought of yet.

Take, for instance, who did A&E's children marry? Their siblings? We see that as kinda gross incest. But they didn't see it that way. A&E weren't the first humans, they were the original people. The first progenitors of the Israelites, the first persons. Their sons didn't have to marry their sisters, they did what any real person did when they needed something, they went out and got it. By their lights, women and children and foreigners weren't persons. Persons were adult male members of the tribe. Women and children and servants had value, but mainly based on who owned them. Foriegners were more like a natural resource, when not dangerous predators. They didn't matter in the ethical and moral scheme of things.
For an interesting look at the Biblical attitudes towards women and children look at the last couple of chapters of Judges.
The Israelites gave a war, but the Benjamites didn't go. So the other Israelites slaughtered the Benjamites women and children. Instead of swearing vengeance for the destruction of their families, the Benjamites just whined about not having any. But the rest of the Israelites had already decided not to marry off their women to such losers. So they all got together and kidnapped a bunch of women for the Benjamites.
And "everybody" lived happily ever after.


It was just a different, more primitive, world. It is not really possible for a modern reader to avoid subjective interpretation of the collection of ancient literature that is Scripture.

There is one excellent resource I know about though. Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. It's an enormous book that takes you through the Bible putting the stories and history into their original context, as best as can be. Asimov himself was a secular Jew. But he was a superb writer, able to take vast amounts of information and make it accessible to readers who don't have degrees in the subject. It's an excellent book if you want to know what the original authors of the Bible were saying to the original audience.
Tom

 

[Deidre]

You could be right. @columbus - I should define what I mean by that. By reading it objectively, I read it as though I were going to explain what Christians believe to others. In this case, fundamentalist Christians, since I'm taking the approach of reading it as though it was entirely literal. (which I never really did before as a Christian lol)

 

[arthra]

Since I find value in a variety of faiths and religions, I've decided to read some ancient texts, one such text being the Bible (again). When I've read it in the past, I was a practicing Christian, so I wonder if it's possible to read the Bible objectively and still be moved to believing that it holds truths for our lives? Thoughts?

When I was studying in University I took a class "The Bible as Literature" and found it useful. I was also impressed with the work of George Lamsa as he approached the Bible as a Syrian and his native language was Aramaic. So you might find George Lamsa a good resource in your studies.

The Lamsa Bible is available on pdf
Lamsa Bible Pdf - Boxwind.com

I also liked his "Gospel Light":
https://egamexi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/gospel-light-a-revised-annotated-edition.pdf

 

[JesusBeliever]

Since I find value in a variety of faiths and religions, I've decided to read some ancient texts, one such text being the Bible (again). When I've read it in the past, I was a practicing Christian, so I wonder if it's possible to read the Bible objectively and still be moved to believing that it holds truths for our lives? Thoughts?

Hi there, when I first read the Bible I was a believer in God but a huge skeptic of the Bible and Christianity and it might be quite surprising to some but reading it did lead me to belief in it and ultimately Christianity. Possibly, what made my experience unique to many is that I highlighted all the words that God had supposedly spoken and I primarily focused on these. I suppose it makes sense now when I think about it, why I did this. I already believed there was a God and I wanted to know whether this God's character matched the one I already believed in, that being a loving God. I can see already that this would't be deemed objective

Anyway, the first words that jumped out at me in the first few chapters of Genesis were these:

"Cursed is the ground for thy sake?"

Now some might dispute this particular rendering but at the time it's impact on me was huge. Coz it encouraged me to give the God of the Bible the benefit of the doubt. That maybe when He appeared to be being a mean and merciless God he was actually doing it for their/our sake. At the very least it helped me get to the end of the book, a few times, and I'm convinced more than ever that this is the case. It was all for our sakes.

 

[Deidre]

I'm still reading the Bible, and really enjoying it. I'm coming away with new insights, not just in terms of what Christianity teaches, but what the people of those times believed, and how they struggled with the same dilemmas as we do today. This footnotes version of the ESV BIble has been really helpful.

 

[Skwim]

Can one read the Bible, objectively?

I think every Christian believes they read the Bible objectively.

.

 

[Deidre]

I think every Christian believes they read the Bible objectively.

.

Probably. Thing is, people already are convinced of their beliefs often times before they read their 'holy books,' so it's sort of like confirmation bias, if anything, if you ask me. Reading it objectively ...like as if you were just reading 'this is why Christians believe what they do,' etc...is really refreshing. As the reader, you don't have to agree with it, or be offended by it...just read it. Like I'm not offended by a math book, kind of like that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmm...... Syncretic, how do you distinguish between fact and fiction in your thinking, and in the Bible? What are your standards of objectivity? I'm confused as to why you insist on making atheism more than it is. Atheism means without a belief in a god, we have no beliefs in any gods because there seems to be no objective way to determine the reality of a god. I think I live in only one reality, but from what I'm reading here, many prefer to pretend to other realities..... realities that seem to have no cause and effect structure.

Your theories don't seem to be shared with others, at least in this thread. Perhaps your idea of what "atheism" is, isn't what other "atheists" actually believe.
Other than that, you presented a hodge podge of ideas, not sure if you were arguing something, or not.

 

[corynski]

Your theories don't seem to be shared with others, at least in this thread. Perhaps your idea of what "atheism" is, isn't what other "atheists" actually believe.
Other than that, you presented a hodge podge of ideas, not sure if you were arguing something, or not.

Or, perhaps my theories aren't shared by more recent generations........... My atheism is simple enough....... if I don't have any evidence of anything supernatural, that is, if it can't be presented objectively so that I perceive it through any of my senses, something that can be measured or corroborated by others, then I assume it's a product of imagination. What I'm reading here about 'God' seems to be a hodge lodge of ideas too, that's why I'm searching for a way to relate these ideas to what I consider reality. To me it appears that men have been creating gods for thousands and thousands of years......and that Christianity is simply one of the most recent.

 

[Hawkins]

The nature of human witnessing is, humans wrote down what have been encountered for other humans to believe with faith. That's actually what human history is. The difference is that human history is the recording of human deeds while the Bible is the recording of God's deeds.

So it boils down to how objective human history is. There's basically no way to measure how objective history is, especially the part happened 2000 years ago or before. We can't even tell how original the records are, as we lost all the original ancient scrolls after the invention of paper. It is thus something which you believe it or you not.