Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[RabbiO]

Would you think that is a plausible scenario, or is it more plausible that these accounts are purely the myths of Bronze Age man who lived in a Barbaric world and projected that back onto Deity.

I think with your high level of education, if you answered the question honestly from both your heart and head the more plausible explanation would be that these accounts are those of man and the facts, if any, are rather sketchy at best.

This Barbaric God is one reason why so many Early Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Manicheans and a host of others detested the Old Testament and it had no place in their Holy Scriptures.

In his essay, "War in the Hebrew Bible - An Overview" which was printed in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 2, Eisenbrauns, 2008, Professor Richard Hess, who has more degrees I think than I have fingers, including a Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion wrote -

"To what extent are the conquests described in Joshua genocidal wars of extermination that have no place in any reasonable ethic of warfare? In my view, a description of this sort would be inaccurate and distorted. References to the destruction of non-combatants in these wars, that is to “men and women,” are scare, referring to Jericho and Ai (Josh 6:21 and 8:25). However, there is reason to suspect that these references in Joshua are stereotypical phrases that emphasize the complete destruction of everyone. On the other hand, Jericho and Ai, the initial two sites of conquest, instead of being town or cities, may have been military forts guarding the routes from the Jordan Valley up to the population centers in the hill country such as Bethel and Jerusalem. Evidence for this conclusion includes (1) the complete absense of references to specific noncombatants such as women and children with the exception of Rehab and her family, who were not killed (2) the lack of settlement at Jericho and Ai during the time of Israel’s emergence in Canaan (3) the use of the term melek ‘king’ to mean a military leader at Canaan at this time (4) the lack of indication in the biblical text that these were large cities (unlike Gibeon and Hazor, which are thus described); and (5) the meaning of the word Ai ‘ruin’, which suggests the reuse of early fortifications to serve as a temporary fort instead of a more permanent site of habitation."

He further notes, "The other two major battles, which were against the northern and southern coalitions, are represented as defensive wars (Joshua 10-11). In both cases, they begin as the coalitions assemble against Israel or its ally and therefore force the people of God into battle (Josh 10:3-5, 11:1-5). Note, furthermore, that the eight or more references to complete destruction of cities represented by these coalitions (in which nothing was left alive) could plausibly be stereotypical descriptions for the purpose of obedience to the command to drive out the Canaanites (Josh 10:28, 30 32 35, 37, 39, 11:1, 14). It is possible that, after the defeat of the army, the populations fled rather than remaining in a relatively defenseless city. Furthermore, we know that many of these “cities” were used primarily for Government buildings, and the common people lived in the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it is not certain that there was a population remaining in these cities to be destroyed. There is no indication in the text of any specific noncombatants who were put to death. In any case, there is clear evidence that there were Canaanites remaining in the areas where Israel settled (Judg 2:10-13)."

The full essay is floating out there online by the way.

My point in posting the above is not necessarily to endorse Dr. Hess's position in whole or in part. Rather it is to remind us all that simply reading a text in a vacuum, without sense of time and/or place or literary conventions may do a disservice to the text or may result in incorrect assumptions on the part of the reader.

Edited November 5, 2010 by RabbiO

[Coolhand]

Well Brother. It seems that if something in the bible (which is itself an alleged account even if certain parts match up with history or locations) agrees with what someone wants to think. Well that's what it says and means exactly then they use it to argue their point. A lot of the times in some form of condemnation.

It also seems if something disagrees with someone or has an account that is less then flattering. Well then it says this but actually means that, the root word was translated wrong, its out of context, etc... Or as in your case it becomes an "alleged account". My only point is that using the bible as justification seems to be very selective when it comes to fundamentalism.

Not trying to ruffle your feathers so much as make a point brother. Looking forward to you sermon at 9eastern this sunday night. (shameless plug)

I have a few thoughts that make sense to me in regard to who gets to claim that theirs is the point that is correct in referring to these passages, tell me if it makes sense to you (not just Blackthorn, but anybody).

Regardless to whether a person holds to the documentary hypothesis or not, the Torah was kept (preserved, edited whatever) as a literary unit read from one scroll. The prophets and the writings all presuppose the Torah (teaching and narrative) as the background for their narratives and discourses.

To take any of these writings as a whole or in part in anyway other than as the part of the literary whole in which they reside is to misunderstand and malign the portions being quoted.

In other words, the parameters are set by the narrator(s), not the reader(s). This is regardless whether the narrative is historical or fictional.

So, the ones who get to claim that their points are valid concerning their conclusions drawn from these texts, are the ones that draw their conclusions from the work as a whole and not in fragments.

Comments?

lol.....thanks. It aught to be a good time...like the old days (refering to sermon).

In his essay, "War in the Hebrew Bible - An Overview" which was printed in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 2, Eisenbrauns, 2008, Professor Richard Hess, who has more degrees I think than I have fingers, including a Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion wrote -

"To what extent are the conquests described in Joshua genocidal wars of extermination that have no place in any reasonable ethic of warfare? In my view, a description of this sort would be inaccurate and distorted. References to the destruction of non-combatants in these wars, that is to “men and women,” are scare, referring to Jericho and Ai (Josh 6:21 and 8:25). However, there is reason to suspect that these references in Joshua are stereotypical phrases that emphasize the complete destruction of everyone. On the other hand, Jericho and Ai, the initial two sites of conquest, instead of being town or cities, may have been military forts guarding the routes from the Jordan Valley up to the population centers in the hill country such as Bethel and Jerusalem. Evidence for this conclusion includes (1) the complete absense of references to specific noncombatants such as women and children with the exception of Rehab and her family, who were not killed (2) the lack of settlement at Jericho and Ai during the time of Israel’s emergence in Canaan (3) the use of the term melek ‘king’ to mean a military leader at Canaan at this time (4) the lack of indication in the biblical text that these were large cities (unlike Gibeon and Hazor, which are thus described); and (5) the meaning of the word Ai ‘ruin’, which suggests the reuse of early fortifications to serve as a temporary fort instead of a more permanent site of habitation."

He further notes, "The other two major battles, which were against the northern and southern coalitions, are represented as defensive wars (Joshua 10-11). In both cases, they begin as the coalitions assemble against Israel or its ally and therefore force the people of God into battle (Josh 10:3-5, 11:1-5). Note, furthermore, that the eight or more references to complete destruction of cities represented by these coalitions (in which nothing was left alive) could plausibly be stereotypical descriptions for the purpose of obedience to the command to drive out the Canaanites (Josh 10:28, 30 32 35, 37, 39, 11:1, 14). It is possible that, after the defeat of the army, the populations fled rather than remaining in a relatively defenseless city. Furthermore, we know that many of these “cities” were used primarily for Government buildings, and the common people lived in the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it is not certain that there was a population remaining in these cities to be destroyed. There is no indication in the text of any specific noncombatants who were put to death. In any case, there is clear evidence that there were Canaanites remaining in the areas where Israel settled (Judg 2:10-13)."

The full essay is floating out there online by the way.

My point in posting the above is not necessarily to endorse Dr. Hess's position in whole or in part. Rather it is to remind us all that simply reading a text in a vacuum, without sense of time and/or place or literary conventions may do a disservice to the text or may result in incorrect assumptions on the part of the reader.

Excellent.

[Coolhand]

What kind of system would Jesus approve of?

I guess we will see. By the way, you answered this question:

"In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?"

....by not answering. And I seriously doubt that you would be as tolerant as you claim is proper if these four things were happening to you and your family. In fact, I would assume you would become surprisingly intolerant if your family was the target of these things.

That a God who is proclaimed to love humans so much that he would sacrifice his only begotten son for them, would be so cruel as to wipe the most innocent of them out as nothing more than the remnants of feces we wipe from our bottoms.

Read RabbiO's post on this.

But also read my response to Blachthorn.

Would you think that is a plausible scenario, or is it more plausible that these accounts are purely the myths of Bronze Age man who lived in a Barbaric world and projected that back onto Deity.

I think with your high level of education, if you answered the question honestly from both your heart and head the more plausible explanation would be that these accounts are those of man and the facts, if any, are rather sketchy at best.

This Barbaric God is one reason why so many Early Christian groups such as the Marcionites, Manicheans and a host of others detested the Old Testament and it had no place in their Holy Scriptures.

So you are not sure?

Or, you would not argue that?

[Fawzo]

In his essay, "War in the Hebrew Bible - An Overview" which was printed in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 2, Eisenbrauns, 2008, Professor Richard Hess, who has more degrees I think than I have fingers, including a Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion wrote -

"To what extent are the conquests described in Joshua genocidal wars of extermination that have no place in any reasonable ethic of warfare? In my view, a description of this sort would be inaccurate and distorted. References to the destruction of non-combatants in these wars, that is to "men and women," are scare, referring to Jericho and Ai (Josh 6:21 and 8:25). However, there is reason to suspect that these references in Joshua are stereotypical phrases that emphasize the complete destruction of everyone. On the other hand, Jericho and Ai, the initial two sites of conquest, instead of being town or cities, may have been military forts guarding the routes from the Jordan Valley up to the population centers in the hill country such as Bethel and Jerusalem. Evidence for this conclusion includes (1) the complete absense of references to specific noncombatants such as women and children with the exception of Rehab and her family, who were not killed (2) the lack of settlement at Jericho and Ai during the time of Israel's emergence in Canaan (3) the use of the term melek 'king' to mean a military leader at Canaan at this time (4) the lack of indication in the biblical text that these were large cities (unlike Gibeon and Hazor, which are thus described); and (5) the meaning of the word Ai 'ruin', which suggests the reuse of early fortifications to serve as a temporary fort instead of a more permanent site of habitation."

He further notes, "The other two major battles, which were against the northern and southern coalitions, are represented as defensive wars (Joshua 10-11). In both cases, they begin as the coalitions assemble against Israel or its ally and therefore force the people of God into battle (Josh 10:3-5, 11:1-5). Note, furthermore, that the eight or more references to complete destruction of cities represented by these coalitions (in which nothing was left alive) could plausibly be stereotypical descriptions for the purpose of obedience to the command to drive out the Canaanites (Josh 10:28, 30 32 35, 37, 39, 11:1, 14). It is possible that, after the defeat of the army, the populations fled rather than remaining in a relatively defenseless city. Furthermore, we know that many of these "cities" were used primarily for Government buildings, and the common people lived in the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it is not certain that there was a population remaining in these cities to be destroyed. There is no indication in the text of any specific noncombatants who were put to death. In any case, there is clear evidence that there were Canaanites remaining in the areas where Israel settled (Judg 2:10-13)."

The full essay is floating out there online by the way.

My point in posting the above is not necessarily to endorse Dr. Hess's position in whole or in part. Rather it is to remind us all that simply reading a text in a vacuum, without sense of time and/or place or literary conventions may do a disservice to the text or may result in incorrect assumptions on the part of the reader.

Thanks for that information RabbiO. I also know that there is much debate about the archaeological evidence in the region and whether it confirms or raises questions about the validity of the story. As with most things regarding the scripture there are experts on both sides of the argument.

At the time of the the Exodus events wasn't Egypt in control of the region? So many questions and I wonder if we will ever know all the facts.

As a believer in the Bible and then as a non-believer I know my impression was clearly that non-combatants payed the priced as well for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This belief was fully reinforced by Hosea:

Hosea 13:16

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

Also with the misogynistic outlook of the writers of the Old testament, the lives of women and children which would have been thought of as nothing more than property would have been of little note.

Do you personaly feel those camps during those times were free of women and children, whether they be military outposts or full townships.

[Pete]

Suppose I was to take the position that these are examples of a hateful and vengeful god that is both dastardly and abominable; and hates children.

How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?

My view of the Old Testament (and I say Old testament as the Torah and the Old testament differ in my view).

There was debate even among the Jews as to how one sees scripture. Scribes who favoured the written tradition and Pharisees the spoken traditional heritage.

I do not argue that the ancient Jews were all bad or that all is the truth in the sense that because it's suggested that it is written in scripture it must be all fact. The Old testament is for me a history of a formation of a nation. I know of few nations that were born without bloodshed or have not placed their own spin on historic events. It is not for me to say all that was done was to the good even as a child is born in the pain of its mother so to a nation is often born in trials. For me the lesson is in the story. Just as the story of Jephthah's daughter seems brutal and may or may not of been a real event, it tells the tale of needing and the trying to be respectful and honest with God. Just as Deuteronomy 23:21-23 talks about the need to follow through with promises to God it also talks about the need to take care what you promise in God's name. As Matthew places the viewpoint that we should not swear by God or anything else (Matthew 5:36) we need to be humble and trusting in God rather than bargaining. The lesson (IMO) is spoken to the heart.The lesson is not in the view that all were real events (we do not know) or that the Jews were wonderful people throughout their history but in the morals that they expressed. I would go with the view of looking at the whole but not necessarily in the view of looking at the whole as undeniable facts but in the view that there is a lesson to be taught by the whole. I still hold to the view that I am a Christian in spite of my doubts and not because I have none. That ability is taken from being able to learn from the whole as it reveals itself to me rather than the view I know the only truth around and all is as scripture portrays.

I am convinced that the Jews defended themselves both aggressively and defensively, for good and bad reasons, and attempted to justify all through their writings as most nations in the past but for me that is not the point. I do not believe God favoured any nation but that is not the same as not being able to see the hand of God in all nations despite mankind. Likewise the value for me of scripture is no tin it all being the truth but that there is truth within it. Not in the assertion of scripture as fact but by it and other means of the conveyance of the voice of God to the hearts of a person.

Hence, this is where we differ when we argue over subjects like the bible and homosexuality. The abomination for me is not in a person beinga practising homosexual but in the abuse (either heterio or homo) of another person held in the love of God. Scripture is wrong (IMO) when it is said to say homosexuality is a sin. Yet, the challenge of these comments within scripture does challenge a person to ask what meaning they have and that lesson I do not believe is taking all at face value but in the mulling it over and allowing the voice of God to speak and not the presuming we know something just on the written viewpoint of another who lived before us. For I believe strongly that God corrects and speaks today as I believe God did in the past. The question for me is are we listening and not just taking the whole on face value and can we see beyond the word of text.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

I guess we will see. By the way, you answered this question:

"In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?"

....by not answering. And I seriously doubt that you would be as tolerant as you claim is proper if these four things were happening to you and your family. In fact, I would assume you would become surprisingly intolerant if your family was the target of these things.

Actually I did not avoid, just overlooked this portion of your response. With higher self esteem and the increased teachings and awareness of the effect of one's actions and thoughts I would predict a big decrease in these events. To be completely honest though there will be instances when they do occur. I don't think there can be set penalties for each case and it should be judged by a court of enlightened people who can rule according to the facts in each instance.

In the future will we be able to control such negative behavior through science. I would prefer this type of action for rehabilitation in in lieu of our current penal system.

Read RabbiO's post on this.

But also read my response to Blachthorn.

Yes I've read them and while RabbiO's posted material seems plausible,it doesn't stand up to real life scenarios of war in those times and other quotes of infanticide in the Bible. To keep their purity in the sight of God it seems complete and utter genocide would have been the way to go.

1Sa 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Hosea 13:16

So you are not sure?

I'm not 100% sure that vampires don't exist either, but the plausibility that actual vampires and not psychopaths acting the part actually exist is very low IMHO

[Atwater Vitki]

Wow...I thought reading 93 responses in another thread turned my brain to an oozing mass...it is now completely liquefied after the above one hundred eighty some odd. Yet I believe my response to The Gulf of Mexico Travesty applies here as well.

My Blessed Brothers, is not the purpose and intent of this topic one of a couple of basic points?

1. That the Bible, as we read it today is a revision of original texts

2. Basic foundations were altered by the authors of the KJV

3. Spong merely points out 1 & 2 above

... or did I miss the boat completely on this??

Brother Coolhand, your opening salvo of having to "explain" your dialogue "... regarding doctrine that lead to my use of the words "Calvinism, Tulip...which in order to actually continue...required definition...not sure were completely understood by anyone but the professional clergy..." is reminiscent to me of my engineering days listening to the "electronics professionals" sit around and intellectually masturbate quantum physics and giggle like 3rd graders over the lack of comprehension by those they felt were inferior to them. I, nor do I hope anyone else here, feel inferior to someone's lack of social proprietary graces in an open forum to those of all levels of understanding.

Most of this debate seems centered around whether the Scriptures have been altered or revised to any significant level as to obscure the original texts from which the KJV was derived. Well, I do believe they were due to several factors.

1. Queen Elizabeth made that clear in her draft for an act of Parliament⁽¹⁾ requesting such a revised Scripture be written

2. King James I, made certain that directive was carried out to the letter⁽²⁾

3. Clergy and those of Higher Learning in the Scriptures had a clear and present danger to their official position should the commoner be privy to such a thing as a comprehensive understanding of the Bible.

Notwithstanding any personal angst with taking the scripture out of the hands of individual clergy, that may or may not have had any singular agenda or rationale to dilute the written word, and putting it in the hands of the average "pew sitter" - God forbid we be so distracted by such untrained observations - translations from Hebrew to Greek to Aramaic to Spanish, German English and French - had already altered the text by their own admissions.⁽³⁾

This is evident both past and present by any translation from the mundane to the apocrypha through simple semantics and syntax alone.

In my most humble opinion, for anyone of contemporary learning to even state the Bible is literal and unchanged; in it's entirety exacting and correct to the original scrolls and Tanakh is, well, a rather uneducated statement. There is simply no reasonable argument for making such a claim due to variances in language, philosophies, theologies and...and..and..

I'm not even going to get into the selection of Books, chapters and various texts left out, edited or put into the KJV by the same learned "forty-seven" who were a part of this process and the four years it took for them to decide on such. As well, whether one does or does not believe in the validity of Essenes, Gnostics or any multitude of writers during the early church, is really immaterial. The fact that so many texts concerning first hand accounts of Christ's life existed, leaves our contemporary knowledge of the time and Life of Christ in a vast vacuum if all we have is the KJV from which to study as so much was left out.

In summary, for me all it took was one look at Queen Elizabeth's initial draft and King Jame's finalized Act of Parliament⁽⁴⁾, a basic understanding of the 17th century church and secular history, to know there was without any doubt, revision, omission and abstruse references made during this process of creating the KJV. To say anything otherwise is to completely ignore historical facts and precedents.

Beings that it was asked repeatedly for any resources outside of Sprong's work or other texts already posted numerous times by other responders, I felt sufficient time has lapsed, without said resources being made available to the author of this topic, to offer this summary. It is given in Peace and hopefully enlightenment, though I have every reason to believe it will be met with the same amount of voracity for keeping his current view. Nonetheless, historical data being what it is I now shall slither back into my cave!

Blessings of Peace,

(1)As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original."

(2) In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day.

(3) "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

(4) When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

Brief History of the KJV

[Coolhand]

Brother Coolhand, your opening salvo of having to "explain" your dialogue "... regarding doctrine that lead to my use of the words "Calvinism, Tulip...which in order to actually continue...required definition...not sure were completely understood by anyone but the professional clergy..." is reminiscent to me of my engineering days listening to the "electronics professionals" sit around and intellectually masturbate quantum physics and giggle like 3rd graders over the lack of comprehension by those they felt were inferior to them. I, nor do I hope anyone else here, feel inferior to someone's lack of social proprietary graces in an open forum to those of all levels of understanding.

I hate to disappoint you brother, but there was no masturbation taking place; mental or otherwise.

The point in using those cumbersome terms were in response to a question that is all too commonly asked by Christians in a Bible study setting as kind of a "get to know you" "see if you can explain your way out of this" trap by someone new coming to the group, who was me at the time.

The question asked was: “Do you think you can be saved and then fall away from the faith and not be saved.”

That seems to be a common question Christians ask for some reason. In trying to give an adequate answer to that, I have always felt that the contrast between Calvinism and Arminianism must be understood: one is determinism and the other is free will. But then the issue of “not having original sin” or a sin nature usually also comes up with brings Pelagius into the picture with his thoughts that there is no sin nature passed down generation to generation, which then leaves you with three basic options: 1) the soul is pre-existing prior to conception; 2) the soul is created at the time of conception; 3) or as the traducionist believes, the soul is a product of the sperm and egg uniting. Which is the only way the teaching of original sin can stand in my opinion.

One side says you can be “saved” and then lose your “salvation,” the other side says if you lose your salvation you never were saved to start with.

So actually it turned out to be a win win situation; they now have a more accurate layout of the question they asked, and I have “proven my worthiness” to be a part of the group.

This was not a bragging session either, this was an illustration to the first point that I made in regard to Spong’s comments about bringing the debate of scholars to the average pew sitting Christian. Which if one attempts to do should do it the way I did it (and I am not claiming to be a Bible Scholar either) by laying out the whole thing; both sides and let the hearers make an informed decision from what they now know about the subject, instead of taking the route that Spong did in this book and informing the reader of why he doesn’t go along with the orthodox ideas.

Do you see the difference?

[Pete]

I hate to disappoint you brother, but there was no masturbation taking place; mental or otherwise.

The point in using those cumbersome terms were in response to a question that is all too commonly asked by Christians in a Bible study setting as kind of a "get to know you" "see if you can explain your way out of this" trap by someone new coming to the group, who was me at the time.

The question asked was: "Do you think you can be saved and then fall away from the faith and not be saved."

That seems to be a common question Christians ask for some reason. In trying to give an adequate answer to that, I have always felt that the contrast between Calvinism and Arminianism must be understood: one is determinism and the other is free will. But then the issue of "not having original sin" or a sin nature usually also comes up with brings Pelagius into the picture with his thoughts that there is no sin nature passed down generation to generation, which then leaves you with three basic options: 1) the soul is pre-existing prior to conception; 2) the soul is created at the time of conception; 3) or as the traducionist believes, the soul is a product of the sperm and egg uniting. Which is the only way the teaching of original sin can stand in my opinion.

One side says you can be "saved" and then lose your "salvation," the other side says if you lose your salvation you never were saved to start with.

So actually it turned out to be a win win situation; they now have a more accurate layout of the question they asked, and I have "proven my worthiness" to be a part of the group.

This was not a bragging session either, this was an illustration to the first point that I made in regard to Spong's comments about bringing the debate of scholars to the average pew sitting Christian. Which if one attempts to do should do it the way I did it (and I am not claiming to be a Bible Scholar either) by laying out the whole thing; both sides and let the hearers make an informed decision from what they now know about the subject, instead of taking the route that Spong did in this book and informing the reader of why he doesn't go along with the orthodox ideas.

Do you see the difference?

I recognise the dilemma for you Cool but one of the reasons I would not get into debates about being saved or not saved is because I do not recognise the concept in the fist place. Do not get me wrong I do personally recognise the kingdom of God within and that which I believe is to come and I believe in Jesus (although we many differ about what) but I just do not accept the Paulian concept of the get out of the get out of jail card. I feel such debates play into the hands of fundamentalism i.e. unless one does something or complies with what we say you will not be saved and something very drastic will happen to you in the next life. Nothing of which either of us can prove and seems to play on the venerable who cannot cope with the perception of not knowing all (IMO). I just trust God that all will be as God wants in the end and that God is more understanding than mankind,s view of God. Sure I cannot prove that either but I can cope with not knowing all and just trusting God.

I do not believe in hell and I do not believe in the devil, and so what would such debates give me. I do believe in God but I do not swallow all that is written about God whether in supposed scripture or not. Such debates in my opinion is a bit like asking an elephant to change a light bulb. It creates more mess than results.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

I recognise the dilemma for you Cool but one of the reasons I would not get into debates about being saved or not saved is because I do not recognise the concept in the fist place. Do not get me wrong I do personally recognise the kingdom of God within and that which I believe is to come and I believe in Jesus (although we many differ about what) but I just do not accept the Paulian concept of the  get out of the get out of jail card. I feel such debates play into the hands of fundamentalism i.e. unless one does something or complies with what we say you will not be saved and something very drastic will happen to you in the next life. Nothing of which either of us can prove and seems to play on the venerable who cannot cope with the perception of not knowing all (IMO).  I just trust God that all will be as God wants in the end and that God is more understanding than mankind,s view of God. Sure I cannot prove that either but I can cope with not knowing all and just trusting God. 

I do not believe in hell and I do not believe in the devil, and so what would such debates give me. I do believe in God but I do not swallow all that is written about God whether in supposed scripture or not. Such debates in my opinion is a bit like asking an elephant to change a light bulb. It creates more mess than results.  

Pete, could you comment specifically on this:

This was not a bragging session either, this was an illustration to the first point that I made in regard to Spong’s comments about bringing the debate of scholars to the average pew sitting Christian. Which if one attempts to do should do it the way I did it (and I am not claiming to be a Bible Scholar either) by laying out the whole thing; both sides and let the hearers make an informed decision from what they now know about the subject, instead of taking the route that Spong did in this book and informing the reader of why he doesn’t go along with the orthodox ideas.

Specifically in regard to whether Spong lays out the topic and allows his readers to decide, or if he decides for the reader and criticizes opposing views.

[Bro. Hex]

Pete, could you comment specifically on this:

(Does) Spong lay out the topic and allow his readers to decide, or(does) he decide for the reader and criticize opposing views.

I am not Pete, but "from the TITLE ALONE"

(of his book: "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism")

it should be quite clear to EVERYONE that

IT WAS NEVER HIS INTENT

to "lay out the topic and allow the reader to decide".

OF COURSE he is (by implication) criticizing the opposite viewpoint.

THAT'S WHY HE WROTE THE BOOK!

Edited November 6, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Pete]

I am not Pete, but "from the title alone"

(his book: "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism")

it should be quite clear that

IT WAS NEVER HIS INTENT to"lay out the topic and allow the reader to decide".

OF COURSE he is (by implication)  criticizing the opposite viewpoint.

That is WHY HE WROTE THE BOOK!

I cannot speak for Spong. He (IMO) wrote a book that re-addresses the assertions of fundamentalism and allows for each person to make their own mind up. Something I am personally grateful for. It has allowed me to recognise that fundamentalism does not solely own the label Christianity and there has always been other views. If fundamentalism was the only Christianity then I would have left long ago. It just does not work for me but I guess for you it does. 

[Atwater Vitki]

I hate to disappoint you brother, but there was no masturbation taking place; mental or otherwise.

The point in using those cumbersome terms were in response to a question that is all too commonly asked by Christians in a Bible study setting as kind of a "get to know you" "see if you can explain your way out of this" trap by someone new coming to the group, who was me at the time.

The question asked was: "Do you think you can be saved and then fall away from the faith and not be saved."

One side says you can be "saved" and then lose your "salvation," the other side says if you lose your salvation you never were saved to start with.

So actually it turned out to be a win win situation; they now have a more accurate layout of the question they asked, and I have "proven my worthiness" to be a part of the group.

This was not a bragging session either, this was an illustration to the first point that I made in regard to Spong's comments about bringing the debate of scholars to the average pew sitting Christian.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do see the difference and always did. I also see avoidance of the other pertinent points several others, as well as myself, brought up...of course...there will now be a request for "specifics"....so....

Posts number 12, 20, 23, 25, 32, 33, 40, 41...........162, 166, 170, 178, 179, 180, 187

The bottom line, from this chair, as I see it, is very simple:

Some of us think Sprong has a valid message, though we may or may not agree with it in whole and you do not agree with him to any degree. That is quite all right. The fact remains, from far too many sources both religious and secular that the Bible was written by many different human beings albeit "inspired by God". Humans have agendas. Agendas alter truth. Even so, this does not mean I do not find a great deal of value in the written word...I very much do. Look at it like the real event vs. the Hollywood version of the same account as one sits in a theater....basic story line= fact....interpretation=opinion of concept.

If the very basic a+b=c doesn't add up for you or anyone else, it is not up to the academics to search until they find an answer that meets yours or other's criteria to validate your point of view. You should be proving them wrong, not the evidential formula changing to make your answer right.

I spent close to 25 years researching until I found the (a, an) answer to my quandary concerning a connection between ancient paganism and modern religion and how each correlated to God. Along the way I received what I am certain is the equivalent to at least a Master's in education regarding both sides of the issue. There are many who value my results, compiled info and thesis and those who continue to deny any correlation... so be it.

The last thing I'm going to do is deny a proven fact, as best we know it today, until there is a compendium of evidence to the contrary....which science and academia does routinely....my/your/anyone's opinion is not a compendium of evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Blessings of Peace,

[Bro. Hex]

I cannot speak for Spong. He (IMO) wrote a book that re-addresses the assertions of fundamentalism and allows for each person to make their own mind up.

All quite true, Pete.

And I don't mean to quarrel with anything that you have said.

My point was, that from the title alone, it is explicit

that fundamentalism is something that the Bible ought to be saved from.

One should not look at a book having such a title,

and complain that this book isn't treating fundamentalism as a "good option".

Well, OF COURSE it isn't...Read the darn TITLE!

[Brother Michael Sky]

I think these verses are one of the reasons why the Judaic branches of Christianity such as the Ebonites and others held to the Gsopel of Matthew. What is odd though is that Jesus and his Apostles didn't exactly follow the cleanliness laws or the ones on Sabbath.

Then there are also the verses which seem to state otherwise:

Ephesians 2:13-15

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 7:18-19

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Interesting take the Essene Gospel of Peace displays towards cleanliness.... It starts out with Jesus telling the sick how to make themselves strong again....

[Coolhand]

Yes, I do see the difference and always did. I also see avoidance of the other pertinent points several others, as well as myself, brought up...of course...there will now be a request for "specifics"....so....

Posts number 12, 20, 23, 25, 32, 33, 40, 41...........162, 166, 170, 178, 179, 180, 187

The bottom line, from this chair, as I see it, is very simple:

Some of us think Sprong has a valid message, though we may or may not agree with it in whole and you do not agree with him to any degree. That is quite all right. The fact remains, from far too many sources both religious and secular that the Bible was written by many different human beings albeit "inspired by God". Humans have agendas. Agendas alter truth. Even so, this does not mean I do not find a great deal of value in the written word...I very much do. Look at it like the real event vs. the Hollywood version of the same account as one sits in a theater....basic story line= fact....interpretation=opinion of concept.

If the very basic a+b=c doesn't add up for you or anyone else, it is not up to the academics to search until they find an answer that meets yours or other's criteria to validate your point of view. You should be proving them wrong, not the evidential formula changing to make your answer right.

I spent close to 25 years researching until I found the (a, an) answer to my quandary concerning a connection between ancient paganism and modern religion and how each correlated to God. Along the way I received what I am certain is the equivalent to at least a Master's in education regarding both sides of the issue. There are many who value my results, compiled info and thesis and those who continue to deny any correlation... so be it.

The last thing I'm going to do is deny a proven fact, as best we know it today, until there is a compendium of evidence to the contrary....which science and academia does routinely....my/your/anyone's opinion is not a compendium of evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Blessings of Peace,

You have several things going on in your post a person could see the difference in (as I see it).

1) In regard to your comment on the Bible, you (and others here) have a set of talking points you are working from that consider the Scriptures to be altered. And some citation of the Church Fathers is used to enforce that. What I have presented is what, in my opinion, would be what the scholars who carry the weight in the argument (the UBS translators) and their comments on which of the Church Fathers testimony was accepted and why; which was based on verifiable evidence, not comments that are uncertain about which passages they were discussing. I would argue that the translators listed in the article from the Long Island Mystic that was posted have all produced a translation of the Greek New Testament that they claim is close to the original. And I have posted links to the New Testament portions that existed prior to Constantine even being born, which no one seems interested in. Attempting to drag actual textual evidence from the forum members or from academia is impossible because it doesnt exist. And somehow Im supposed to believe that because it does not exist that that is my proof.

So do I see the difference in that? Yeah I do. But the fact still remains, both sides may have arguments, but nothing is proven until one of these magical autographs happens to surface. I would rather rely on original sources and let them say what they say and adjust my beliefs to that. Has that happened you might ask? Absolutely; you might ask someone who has been on this forum, back from the Snitz days when I first started here in like 2001. Contrivances are no reason (in my opinion) to switch from what is known to what could be. If heretical writings got through, would it not also make sense that some of the alleged unaltered texts would have made it through as well?

2) In regard to researching something to find evidence to prove your argument is not done by anyone that is worth listening to, because when you go into research with the outcome already determined, guess what the results are. When people pull little pieces of Scripture out that is called proof texting; which belongs in the eisegesis method. Which is not my approach to Bible studies or research. I hardly ever quote Scripture and when I do I do not proof text; I use at least enough to get the whole thought of that passage or pericope.

So do I see a difference in that? Yeah I do. But that is not research and if you are claiming that is my method, then how do you account for the numerous requests that I have made in this topic for a text that evidences the alteration argument.

3) In regard to your research; I respect and admire you for your dedication to your studies. However, having the equivalent to a degree is not the same as having one. I have the equivalent of an engineering degree, and I use that in the commercial refrigeration field by because I do not have the actual degree, I do not get paid what an engineer should get paid. I know people who tell me all the time they have the equivalent of Phd in this or that. Even at that, who cares what degree anybody has when it comes down to it? My thoughts are if you want to be considered an authority in any area you need to appropriate degrees. For a discussion here, your degrees my degrees, or whoevers degrees are irrelevant; I cannot speak for you but I certainly am not claiming to be an authority at anything. Also, I have no idea how the equivalent of a masters degree in education would help you in the study of religion; it would appear to be two different fields to me. And if you are claiming to be an authority in a specific field, where are you published?

So do I see a difference in that? Yeah I do; but it is irrelevant, so who cares.

Blessings and peace to you as well my brother .

Edited November 7, 2010 by Coolhand

[Coolhand]

I am not Pete, but "from the TITLE ALONE"

(of his book: "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism")

it should be quite clear to EVERYONE that

IT WAS NEVER HIS INTENT

to "lay out the topic and allow the reader to decide".

OF COURSE he is (by implication) criticizing the opposite viewpoint.

THAT'S WHY HE WROTE THE BOOK!

So when he says on page x that he:

"wants to place the biblical theological debates that are commonplace among scholars at the disposal of the typical church goer"

Does that mean then that he wants to "arm" them with his conclusions so that when they run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about, that in the process of them looking foolish they will somehow "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?"

So the readers are to know what Spong thinks, without the benfit of a theological education that give the what, when, and why behind the arguments, and in this knowledge void they are suppose to "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?"

Isn't that part of the problem of fundamentalism, specifically: arguing the Bible from a point of ignorance? Which would be the result ACCORDING TO HIM from what he says on page 10 where he states: "That the average "pew sitter" in Catholic and Protestant churches is biblically illiterate."

Strange strategy; but you may be right.

Certainly not how I would go about it.

[Bro. Hex]

So when he says on page x that he:

"wants to place the biblical theological debates that are commonplace among scholars at the disposal of the typical church goer"

Does that mean then that he wants to "arm" them with his conclusions so that when they run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about, that in the process of them looking foolish they will somehow "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?"

So the readers are to know what Spong thinks, without the benfit of a theological education that give the what, when, and why behind the arguments, and in this knowledge void they are suppose to "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?"

Isn't that part of the problem of fundamentalism, specifically: arguing the Bible from a point of ignorance? Which would be the result ACCORDING TO HIM from what he says on page 10 where he states: "That the average "pew sitter" in Catholic and Protestant churches is biblically illiterate."

Strange strategy; but you may be right.

I "might be right" about WHAT EXACTLY?

I didn't say all that gibberish...you did.

Don't try to put words into my mouth.

It won't work, and I resent it.

What I am saying is that thinking readers

should be able to tell from that book's title

that it isn't going to be a paean to fundamentalism.

And criticizing it for not giving "equal treatment"

to the fundamentalist point-of-view is just flat-out ridiculous.

[Coolhand]

I "might be right" about WHAT EXACTLY?

I didn't say all that gibberish...you did.

Don't try to put words into my mouth.

It won't work, and I resent it.

What I am saying is that thinking readers

should be able to tell from that book's title

that it isn't going to be a paean to fundamentalism.

And criticizing it for not giving "equal treatment"

to the fundamentalist point-of-view is just flat-out ridiculous.

Have you read the book?

[Brother Michael Sky]

Well, as you said, folks have a tendency to look for what they want within the scriptures, and looking hard enough - find what they seek.... so, with that in mind, wouldn't just sharing the message you've personally found be the right action if you believe the average Christian is Biblically illiterate? Maybe he feels that when they do their searching in the Texts, they'll find the message he is suggesting... Maybe he's been working on his parables.....

I'm curious what course of action YOU think he SHOULD undertake? It seems you were questioning his ability to preach non-standard doctrine.... am I right? That he shouldn't call himself by a name which has very specific connotations? Is that it? What do you think the PROPER action would be if he wants to share such a different message?