Inconsistent Bible Criticisms

[Bear Wild]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

Not inconsistent, the bible is full of myth and metaphors not meant to be taken as literal. That is what is seen. The old testament was written by Jewish people recording the myths and stories to preserve the teachings. But these were teachings not absolute truth. Name me the oldest bible or Torah that is complete. The bible was oral tradition later translated into written language at a much later. So many cultures have the same pattern. The criticism is not what is in the bible but the effort to accept it as absolute truth when is could never be. Instead of seen the writings as teaching and making them the absolute last word on how the world and humans came about is the real problem. You loose the real meaning in the attempt to prove things happened as fact. You miss the real teaching

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To me this is an extremely astute observation and just as refreshing. Thanks.

Hey I'm glad we have some common ground.

That certainly is a valid perspective but not by any means far removed from the theological norm. Some of it, not all of it. I find control as a motivation to be patently absurd no matter who or when you think the texts were written. The Bible primarily consists of examples of where any control is almost entirely unsuccessful, and the purpose of the founding of a nation of laws was predicated upon the inability to adhere to those laws and thereby demonstrating the nature of sin (to miss the mark) and the need of salvation.

That using the new paradigm shifts in faith for control not always being successful doesn't mean that it won't be attempted. But I think you're reading more sinister allusions in the word 'control,' that I'm talking about. Which is more like a non-centralized governance than moustache-twisting villains (and honestly I think that portrayal of religious founders in most cases as this stereotype is as obnoxiously pond-shallow as you do.) But obviously the bible does allude to the creation of manipulative and heavy handed brow beating with rules and rituals by the priestly class as something that did happen. It was part of the whole maligning of the pharisees. The difference is you think this was just part of the biblical narrative of the nature of sin, many Jewish scholars think it was an upstart new church creating propaganda as it looked to siphon off Jewish converts, and I think it's probably something more in the middle.

If, by creating moral fables you mean to imply parables and illustrations, symbolism. metaphorical or allegorical instruction, then yes, the Bible certainly makes use of those, but to dismiss everything that seems out of line with the natural, or modern scientific explanation is a.) inconclusive and narrow minded at best and b.) often misinterpreted as not being symbolic etc. in the first place. For example, celestial phenomenon in the books of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation being representations of social and political upheaval, which can be established by comparing the applications in the aforementioned books.

I agree for the most part, in that lots of what is shouted from the rooftops as ascientific by some non-Christians was probably never meant to be taken as something other than symbolic. But there is definitely a much wider portion of the OT viewed as representative allegory and not literal history by many more Jews than Christians. I fall more on that side too. But I also do think that there are portions of the bible that are just, not to put too fine a point on it, errant, due to the lack of modern knowledge the writers had about the world. But I'm way past having the patience or desire to go into those foothills of CvE or other well tread paths these days. Happy to agree to disagree.

Actually, if I go through your list they are all patently absurd except for the obvious truth that there were multiple writers over a relatively great period of time.

To call the Bible quasi historical is really irresponsible and uninformed. The extant copies compared to other histories presents a tremendously superior presentation alone. The meticulous copying, the unprecedented honesty . . .

I'm not knocking the actual historocity of the bible. There is quite a lot of valuable information there about the views and certain people and events. But there's a lot of a-historical descriptions of events that are dubious from a historical perspective, including a Hebrew Egyptian slave society in Egypt let alone the purported events surrounding it. Similar likely propagandist pieces about political enemies (especially about the Canaanites) are pretty typical of recordkeeping of the time. Post hoc taking credit for collapsing cities which fell through civil strife or other invaders, not Israelite conquest, exaggerating Israel's control over regions and sporting larger cities than they had, and several debates on gospel contradictions are had by Christian, not non-Christian scholars. Heck you could spend a day listening two two Christian debaters decide whether Act's description of the apostle Paul is more correct or less accurate than Paul's writings on himself.) It is entirely fair to say that the bible isn't a history book even if it contains many things which are very historically interesting. Hence, quasi-history. Further, I don't think it's intended to be a history book, any more than a science book. What history is presented is there to preserve a narrative, one that is not defined by neutral historical observation.

 

[ChristineM]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

The problem is that no one knows who wrote the bible so speculation based on ones understanding of the period will define authors to the one speculating.

My own view is that priests of that time, as would most people with some wealth, would keep goats. So perhaps both speculations are correct.

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

Both. And more, written to control those living at the time.

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

I am told often what i should think. Most often by religious people trying to impose their own brand of faith on me. What people tend to forget is that others can think for themselves.

 

[pearl]

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Actually both. The Babylonian exile represents what was the final editing, redaction and compilation of ancient traditions, both oral and written.

 

[Windwalker]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in defense of the Bible? I have, of course.

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

That's not an inconsistency. Here, let me fix it for you. It was written by the priests and scholars of primitive goat herders while in Babylonian exile. There, fixed.

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

Why would they have "obviously known better" about people long dead before their time? And it's not a "quasi" historical mythology. It's just a simple historical mythology. No quasi about it. That's what it simply is.

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

I know. We get that all the time from preachers who think the Old Testament, or New Testament for that matter, are meant to be read as scientifically and historically accurate.

 

[sealchan]

Specifically my post above? The OP? You think that criticism of criticism is telling someone how to think?

I think that criticism of criticism has to acknowledge the issue of self-reference which renders itself non-sensical.

Because different perspectives dont agree with one another does not give grounds for dismissing those perspectives. If that were the case then the gospels would be self-negating.

 

[Shad]

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

This is a development and contribution "slam" within a scope of human history and civilization not a literal point of authorship. A group of people that are otherwise unremarkable outside the religion(s) having grand universal truth(s) while we in the modern era have discovered things those people never even thought of in their wildest dreams. It's a poor argument but it exists.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

"Primitive goat herders" and "priests and scholars in exile" need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

"Primitive goat herders" and "priests and scholars in exile" need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[74x12]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

Yes of course. The fact is their opinion is of no more weight than your own. Let the blind lead the blind. They'll both fall in the ditch.

 

[Riders]

Have you ever noticed inconsistencies in criticisms of the Bible?

For example, who wrote the Bible, primitive goat herders or priests and scholars in Babylonian exile?

Given either one of those possibilities was it written to control people who were long dead or was it written as an sort of quasi historical mythology to people who obviously would have known better?

It's odd when you think about what people are thinking about when they are telling you what you should think.

That's the strangest thing I have ever heard, where did you get that? I have read tons of criticism of the Bible and never read any of that.Where the heck did primitive goat herders get into this conversation?Scholors in Babylonian exile huh?

 

[Riders]

Hey I'm glad we have some common ground.

That using the new paradigm shifts in faith for control not always being successful doesn't mean that it won't be attempted. But I think you're reading more sinister allusions in the word 'control,' that I'm talking about. Which is more like a non-centralized governance than moustache-twisting villains (and honestly I think that portrayal of religious founders in most cases as this stereotype is as obnoxiously pond-shallow as you do.) But obviously the bible does allude to the creation of manipulative and heavy handed brow beating with rules and rituals by the priestly class as something that did happen. It was part of the whole maligning of the pharisees. The difference is you think this was just part of the biblical narrative of the nature of sin, many Jewish scholars think it was an upstart new church creating propaganda as it looked to siphon off Jewish converts, and I think it's probably something more in the middle.

I agree for the most part, in that lots of what is shouted from the rooftops as ascientific by some non-Christians was probably never meant to be taken as something other than symbolic. But there is definitely a much wider portion of the OT viewed as representative allegory and not literal history by many more Jews than Christians. I fall more on that side too. But I also do think that there are portions of the bible that are just, not to put too fine a point on it, errant, due to the lack of modern knowledge the writers had about the world. But I'm way past having the patience or desire to go into those foothills of CvE or other well tread paths these days. Happy to agree to disagree.

I'm not knocking the actual historocity of the bible. There is quite a lot of valuable information there about the views and certain people and events. But there's a lot of a-historical descriptions of events that are dubious from a historical perspective, including a Hebrew Egyptian slave society in Egypt let alone the purported events surrounding it. Similar likely propagandist pieces about political enemies (especially about the Canaanites) are pretty typical of recordkeeping of the time. Post hoc taking credit for collapsing cities which fell through civil strife or other invaders, not Israelite conquest, exaggerating Israel's control over regions and sporting larger cities than they had, and several debates on gospel contradictions are had by Christian, not non-Christian scholars. Heck you could spend a day listening two two Christian debaters decide whether Act's description of the apostle Paul is more correct or less accurate than Paul's writings on himself.) It is entirely fair to say that the bible isn't a history book even if it contains many things which are very historically interesting. Hence, quasi-history. Further, I don't think it's intended to be a history book, any more than a science book. What history is presented is there to preserve a narrative, one that is not defined by neutral historical observation.

Considering the fact that I have no college degree, I do not like to respond to posts this way.Many of the words here are some I have never seen before.Its over my head much of it.

However I can respond to the last sentence and that is it. This line here only.
Heck you could spend a day listening two two Christian debaters decide whether Act's description of the apostle Paul is more correct or less accurate than Paul's writings on himself.) It is entirely fair to say that the bible isn't a history book

I have seen and read other historians on the historical ideas about the New testament, and a whole big bunch of them that I PERSONALLY have heard, me, what I have heard is that nobody knows who wrote the bible, and neither Paul nor any of the disciples wrote any of the bible.

It was not written from the perspective of someone who experienced first hand the events of the new testament, it was written second hand or 3rd or some other way, told as a story to another person to another to another and on down.

There are no original copies, only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.

 

[Erebus]

The main one I see on a semi-regular basis is criticising a literal interpretation of the Bible while simultaneously insisting a literal interpretation is the only valid one. It's mainly used as a means of applying the criticisms of fundamentalists to all Christians, regardless of how progressive they may be.

For example:

Non-Christian - "The Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality is abhorrent and has no place in modern society."

Christian - "I agree, it would be better to move on from those attitudes."

Non-Christian - "Aha! The Bible says it's a sin so you have to believe it is. You're being a hypocrite."


I have to confess this attitude baffles me. Fundamentalism is a very real threat so why the hell would you criticise somebody for not being a fundamentalist?

 

[pearl]

It was not written from the perspective of someone who experienced first hand the events of the new testament, it was written second hand or 3rd or some other way, told as a story to another person to another to another and on down.

I'm sure you do not realize it, but you have stated what is Catholic interpretive principles as the Church acknowledges three stages in the compilation of the NT. (1) Jesus and the Twelve, nothing remains, (2) the oral tradition of the Apostles, (3) the writing of the evangelists, another generation.

It is entirely fair to say that the bible isn't a history book

Nor was it ever meant to be, the NT contains testimonies in faith.

There are no original copies, only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.

And since these 'copies' are not yet Sacred Scripture they are edited and redacted by copyists.

neither Paul nor any of the disciples wrote any of the bible.

There are some letters of Paul that remain in dispute, but many are believed to be written by him and that he was the earliest to write.

 

[pearl]

The main one I see on a semi-regular basis is criticising a literal interpretation of the Bible while simultaneously insisting a literal interpretation is the only valid one.

Depends on what is meant by 'literal'. The literal meaning which is what the author intended to convey is one thing, a 'literalist' interpretation confuses what the author intended with his mode of expression, not to be taken literally.

 

[james blunt]

Twas a past whereas thou tongue went forth and thy words were differently .


Compared to now where one tries to speak using big words that sound important !

 

[Riders]

The main one I see on a semi-regular basis is criticising a literal interpretation of the Bible while simultaneously insisting a literal interpretation is the only valid one. It's mainly used as a means of applying the criticisms of fundamentalists to all Christians, regardless of how progressive they may be.

For example:

Non-Christian - "The Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality is abhorrent and has no place in modern society."

Christian - "I agree, it would be better to move on from those attitudes."

Non-Christian - "Aha! The Bible says it's a sin so you have to believe it is. You're being a hypocrite."


I have to confess this attitude baffles me. Fundamentalism is a very real threat so why the hell would you criticise somebody for not being a fundamentalist?

I agree with this! The Liberal Christian churches like the United Methodists are doing more good then hqrm, why bring them into that?