Should I Read The Bible?

[InChrist]

I am not a Jew or a Christian. In my time on RF I have seen this book torn to pieces and have often admired the logic of the arguments thrown against it. Of course when I say book I have become aware of the numerous versions, translations and alterations. Other issues such as John, Constantine, Gnosticism add to the stew.

Despite the above, of late I have become very curious. Is there any good reason for a non-believer to read it? What could I expect in terms of my growth and development? Are there any good companion/guide books for beginners?

I would read the Bible with an open heart and mind and simply ask God, if you believe there is a Creator, to give you insight and understanding. If you don't know whether you believe there is a Creator then ask that whether there is or not would be revealed to you.

 

[rocala]

No...The bible is the experience of the territory not a map of the territory. . Throw it away, go into the territory, hike or saunter as muir would say, in the territory and read john muir. Who knows ypu might eventually understand muir, then you will begin to understand the bible.

Wow. Many thanks David, I had not come across John Muir before. I just did a quick bit of research. An amazing man.
Two of my passions are the history of ideas and the environment. You have just introduced them to each other.

 

[David T]

Wow. Many thanks David, I had not come across John Muir before. I just did a quick bit of research. An amazing man.
Two of my passions are the history of ideas and the environment. You have just introduced them to each other.

Yes... Stay away from the bible for the near future and get out and directly experience what the text is writing about. No science, not religion, not philosophy, not our nonsense about it, but nature directly. Its much larger than the human world.

RF and all the" i believe, i dont believe, i am agnostic" nonsense of culture will disappear if you are willing.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I would read the Bible with an open heart and mind a

How about reading the Bible with an open mind but through the lens of textual criticism and historical criticism like a good theologian or Bible scholar would?

 

[Rival]

How about reading the Bible with an open mind but through the lens of textual criticism and historical criticism like a good theologian or Bible scholar would?

A person reads something how he reads something; applying a bias straight off the bat would just disrupt the whole thing. I went to the Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita with no preconceptions, very little knowledge of Dharmic faith and it did very little for me. Going into something with a mind already made up means you may as well not bother. I was once a Christian and through reading the NT just as, I came the to conclusion that it's not true.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

A person reads something how he reads something; applying a bias straight off the bat would just disrupt the whole thing. I went to the Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita with no preconceptions, very little knowledge of Dharmic faith and it did very little for me. Going into something with a mind already made up means you may as well not bother. I was once a Christian and through reading the NT just as, I came the to conclusion that it wasn't true.

Reading the Bible and applying critical thinking to it is important, and through the critical methods I describe the scholar is able to see what the original intention of the text is. If you are going to read it as mere literature, you need not bother with those methods, but if you wish to extract meaning from the text you have to do so through critical methodology or you are going to get it wrong and start believing in strange doctrines like the reality of a Biblical flood and/or the existence of cannibalistic giant half-angels.

 

[Sunstone]

I think reading the Bible might help you understand some Western cultural and intellectual history. I'm not sure whether reading it is more valuable than using the time to read a good historian, though.

Personally, I would spend my time reading Kaufmann's "Critique of Religion and Philosophy" -- if I had to pick a good, general introduction to Western intellectual history.

If I wanted some profound wisdom literature, I think there are about a thousand to ten thousand books that are more profound than most anything in the Bible. In my opinion, the Bible is in itself a fairly second-rate work of wisdom literature. However, some of the commentaries on it are first rate. Read Aquinas, Maimonides, or Hillel, for instance.

Or -- again -- just read Kaufmann.

Whatever you do, good luck!

 

[Road Warrior]

I am not a Jew or a Christian. In my time on RF I have seen this book torn to pieces and have often admired the logic of the arguments thrown against it. Of course when I say book I have become aware of the numerous versions, translations and alterations. Other issues such as John, Constantine, Gnosticism add to the stew.

Despite the above, of late I have become very curious. Is there any good reason for a non-believer to read it? What could I expect in terms of my growth and development? Are there any good companion/guide books for beginners?

As the wise man said “Knowledge is power”. A less wise man said “Edjukashun is good”. There’s some history in the Bible and some ancient wisdom. Even if most of the history is unverifiable, those who do accept the Bible as a religious text believe it’s true. Therefore, but reading and understanding the Bible, you’ll have a better understanding of the people who are members of the religion.

 

[Sunstone]

And it was an odd sequel at that. It was like the first part is A Game of Thrones and then the second part is The Matrix and somehow they are supposed to be connected to each other. I just don't get it.

With respect, the reason you don't get it might be because you are looking at it through modern eyes. Early on in Christian history, there was an extensive centuries long debate over whether to include the OT in the Christian cannon. The debate had very little to do with whether the two sets of scripture made sense together. Instead, it revolved around the nature of Jesus Christ. So, you see, from an ancient perspective, the Bible is the Bible in order to define Christ's nature and mission -- not in order to make a coherent story.

 

[Rival]

and through the critical methods I describe the scholar is able to see what the original intention of the text is.

No, it's just another interpretation and this is the problem. He needs to interpret for himself.

 

[SalixIncendium]

As the wise man said “Knowledge is power”.

School House Rocky?

Just kidding. I know it was that Kevin Bacon guy.

 

[Sunstone]

Thanks. I have already read some of Joseph Campbell, probably something to do with this current itch.

Campbell is excellent, Rocala, but one must be a wee bit careful. He has a tendency to sometimes represent his own ideas as the ideas of other people. For example, his interpretation of Nietzsche's Cosmic Dancer has very little to do with Nietzsche and very much to do with him.

Now having said that it must be noted that Campbell's "interpretation" of Nietzsche's Dancer is arguably six times more profound than what the very profound Nietzsche came up with! And Campbell does that quite often. Interprets someone else's ideas in ways that are several fold more profound than the originals!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

No, it's just another interpretation and this is the problem. He needs to interpret for himself.

Textual, literary and historical critical methodology are not interpretations in themselves but the tools in which to use to arrive at a more accurate interpretation of the text

 

[Sunstone]

Two of my passions are the history of ideas.....

Do you have any favorite intellectual historians? I'm always on the look out for a new one.

 

[Rival]

Textual, literary and historical critical methodology are not interpretations in themselves but the tools in which to use to arrive at a more accurate interpretation of the text

Yes, tools. Many hypotheses have been put forward about various Biblical books but each person will have his own take on what he reads and how he thinks of it, what it means and what its significance is; if you go to someone and tell him, Oh, ignore the Rabbis/Vicars/Imams/Whatevers who have been studying this for thousands of years, this is what the text really means - not only are you being unbelievably lofty but totally disregarding any other interpretation that could benefit a person.

 

[David T]

With respect, the reason you don't get it might be because you are looking at it through modern eyes. Early on in Christian history, there was an extensive centuries long debate over whether to include the OT in the Christian cannon. The debate had very little to do with whether the two sets of scripture made sense together. Instead, it revolved around the nature of Jesus Christ. So, you see, from an ancient perspective, the Bible is the Bible in order to define Christ's nature and mission -- not in order to make a coherent story.

The real question sun becomes what the hell is the text actually!? . From a more deductive view its understood as a map about the territory. From a more experiential view its an experience of the territory, not a map about.

Christianity is 99% made up of folks that for them the text is a map, and 1% its not a map of the territory but experience of the territory. Christian "mystics" what ever that means are really a tiny tiny fraction of christianity. They are so rare that they are not brought up in the silly debates here. I would like to see a creationism or an ID individual bring up Thomas Merton as their expert on their theory fantasy about intelligent Design. They dont for a reason. Merton is a mystic and is grounded thus rare. The text is not a map.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Yes, tools. Many hypotheses have been put forward about various Biblical books but each person will have his own take on what he reads and how he thinks of it, what it means and what its significance is; if you go to someone and tell him, Oh, ignore the Rabbis/Vicars/Imams/Whatevers who have been studying this for thousands of years, this is what the text really means - not only are you being unbelievably lofty but totally disregarding any other interpretation that could benefit a person.

I believe that a person should study the text using the critical methods available and come to their own conclusions rather than having all the Rabbis/Vicars/Imans/Whatevers muddying the waters for them.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, tools. Many hypotheses have been put forward about various Biblical books but each person will have his own take on what he reads and how he thinks of it, what it means and what its significance is; if you go to someone and tell him, Oh, ignore the Rabbis/Vicars/Imams/Whatevers who have been studying this for thousands of years, this is what the text really means - not only are you being unbelievably lofty but totally disregarding any other interpretation that could benefit a person.

You make it sound like a guy with 25 or 30 years dedicated to Biblical scholarship has opinions about the Bible that are no better than an uneducated Sunday School teacher. That's not been my experience of genuine scholars -- and I've known a few.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, tools. Many hypotheses have been put forward about various Biblical books but each person will have his own take on what he reads and how he thinks of it, what it means and what its significance is; if you go to someone and tell him, Oh, ignore the Rabbis/Vicars/Imams/Whatevers who have been studying this for thousands of years, this is what the text really means - not only are you being unbelievably lofty but totally disregarding any other interpretation that could benefit a person.

Just so you know, the analytic tools developed by scholars in Comparative Religious Studies were generally acknowledged as THE gold standard for comparative studies of any sort. Now, I'm speaking of "back in my day" -- I don't know if they still set the standard today. But the Comparative Religion Scholars used to be unsurpassed by any other comparative studies field.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Just so you know, the analytic tools developed by scholars in Comparative Religious Studies were generally acknowledged as THE gold standard for comparative studies of any sort. Now, I'm speaking of "back in my day" -- I don't know if they still set the standard today. But the Comparative Religion Scholars used to be unsurpassed by any other comparative studies field.

Damn straight and a bravo to you