Should the Bible be reviewed?

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 02:10PM #1

I'm just wondering what religious people think of some of the harsher elements of the Bible. I'm non religious myself so I'm not entirely well versed in biblical matters but I am aware that some parts it contain some pretty outdated views. The old testament in particular I have a problem with. The parts that advocate violence and slavery, condemns homosexuals and such. Should we not consider a book that's thousands of years old to be a wee bit primitive? I'm just looking for the opinions of the normal modern day Christians on the book that's supposed to set the guidelines for their belief. Any thoughts?

Keylem · 28-11-2011 02:38PM

Lk 21:33

PDN · 28-11-2011 03:07PM

No, but I think it needs to be better understood.

robindch · 28-11-2011 03:23PM

PDN wrote: »

I think it needs to be better understood.

Agreed.

A+A is doing its very best to help out

Manach · 28-11-2011 03:25PM

No. I'll let the biblical scholars show the relevance of the how the Bible changed from Old to New Testament so as to fulfill the coming of Jesus and the new convanent.
However, In defence of ancient texts in general, Hellenistic/Roman Jurisprudence, Drama, Politics, Histories are still as insightful then as now into the human condition which has not changed since "primitive" times

PDN · 28-11-2011 03:26PM

robindch wrote: »

Agreed.

A+A is doing its very best to help out

Yes, in a similar way to how Answers in Genesis is helping people to understand science better.

Personally, I think understanding tends to spring from less partisan approaches.

Newsite · 28-11-2011 03:29PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I'm just wondering what religious people think of some of the harsher elements of the Bible. I'm non religious myself so I'm not entirely well versed in biblical matters but I am aware that some parts it contain some pretty outdated views. The old testament in particular I have a problem with. The parts that advocate violence and slavery, condemns homosexuals and such. Should we not consider a book that's thousands of years old to be a wee bit primitive? I'm just looking for the opinions of the normal modern day Christians on the book that's supposed to set the guidelines for their belief. Any thoughts?

On the contrary, a better understanding is the way to go. Essentially what you're saying is that it should be changed so as to fit in with what you feel like doing and how you feel things should be, rather than the way God wants them to be.

Which could be seen as arrogance of.....biblical proportions

Zombrex · 28-11-2011 05:34PM

Newsite wrote: »

On the contrary, a better understanding is the way to go. Essentially what you're saying is that it should be changed so as to fit in with what you feel like doing and how you feel things should be, rather than the way God wants them to be.

Which could be seen as arrogance of.....biblical proportions

Who says it wasn't being better understood centuries ago when people were burning witches and waging holy wars?

"Better understanding" just means re-interpreting the passages using the moral zeitgeist of the day. It is effectively the same thing as changing the Bible.

Slavery is considered wrong so we must "better understand" the slavery passages in the Bible with that in mind, because it can't be as simply as God actually likes slavery, thinks it is great and we who say it is immoral are actually in the wrong.

Genocide is wrong so we must "better understand" the passages in the Bible where God orders genocide, because it can't be as simple as God likes genocide, thinks it is great and we are mistaken.

Rape is wrong so we must "better understand" the passages in the Bible where God orders his soldiers to take virgins from wars for themselves as plunder, because it can't be as simple as God thinks forced marriage and rape is perfectly fine and we need to lighten up about rape and forced marriage.

Etc etc.

An actual change, saying flat out that some things in the Bible are just wrong would seem a far less arrogant move than all this mental gymnastics. Listen to William Lane Craig try to explain how it was actually better for the Israelites to kill all the children of their conquered neighbors if you want a good example (and laugh).

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 05:40PM

Newsite wrote: »

On the contrary, a better understanding is the way to go. Essentially what you're saying is that it should be changed so as to fit in with what you feel like doing and how you feel things should be, rather than the way God wants them to be.

Which could be seen as arrogance of.....biblical proportions

Please don't take it as arrogance on my part. You see I'm not religious so I personally don't mind what's in the Bible. I'm just wondering how religious folk view those parts of the bible that challenge modern day moral concepts. I'm talking about the almost barbaric stuff from the old testament mostly. Sodom and Gomorrah type stories where God doesn't comes across all that nice.

Here's an example:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" It's from a psalm, I'm not sure which one though.
I know people will say that stuff like this is out of context and it may well be because I haven't read the any of the rest of the verse that this came from, but still, how does a better understanding of this type of act further Christianity? Surely the church would be better off to take a step back and ask, do we really believe this stuff?

PDN · 28-11-2011 05:41PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Slavery is considered wrong so we must "better understand" the slavery passages in the Bible with that in mind, because it can't be as simply as God actually likes slavery, thinks it is great and we who say it is immoral are actually in the wrong.

This is a prime example of how partisans peddling the party line distort everything to fit their one-eyed perspective.

The primary reason why slavery is considered wrong today is because those who had a biblical worldview argued and campaigned against it.

So, in Zombrex's Orwellian anti-theist rewriting of history, it is presented as if Christians said, "Oh, society thinks slavery is wrong - so I must come up with an interpretation of Scripture to suit that."

Real history tells us that Christians said, "My interpretation of Scripture tells me slavery is wrong - now let's roll up our sleeves and convince society of that fact."

Soul Winner · 28-11-2011 05:45PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I'm just wondering what religious people think of some of the harsher elements of the Bible. I'm non religious myself so I'm not entirely well versed in biblical matters but I am aware that some parts it contain some pretty outdated views. The old testament in particular I have a problem with. The parts that advocate violence and slavery, condemns homosexuals and such. Should we not consider a book that's thousands of years old to be a wee bit primitive? I'm just looking for the opinions of the normal modern day Christians on the book that's supposed to set the guidelines for their belief. Any thoughts?

Check out Paul Copan's book: "Is God a moral monster?"

He goes into the very areas you're talking about. Well worth the read.

Manach · 28-11-2011 05:46PM

PDN wrote: »

Real history tells us that Christians said, "My interpretation of Scripture tells me slavery is wrong - now let's roll up our sleeves and convince society of that fact."

In support of PDN's point , there is an excellent book by William Hague on William Wilberforce which shows how this was achieved.

PDN · 28-11-2011 05:49PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Here's an example:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" It's from a psalm, I'm not sure which one though.
I know people will say that stuff like this is out of context and it may well be because I haven't read the any of the rest of the verse that this came from, but still, how does a better understanding of this type of act further Christianity?

It's from Psalm 137 (the Rivers of Babylon one that Boney M turned into a hit). It is a line in a song that describes the frustration of an oppressed people who are being used as a slaves in a foreign land. They struggle with waiting in faith for God to fulfill His promise to free them, and with the temptation to resort to violence against their oppressors.

Which, for those of us who want to live in the real world and help people in similar ethical dilemmas, is very relevant indeed. Maybe you should stop trying to look at the Bible as a set of easy answers, and see it as a grown-up book for people who see Christianity being advanced by wrestling with real issues.

Surely the church would be better off to take a step back and ask, do we really believe this stuff?

We really believe that the Israelites were in exile and that they felt that way. We really believe that the Psalms are songs that accurately express their emotions. Why should we question that historical fact?

Zombrex · 28-11-2011 05:57PM

PDN wrote: »

This is a prime example of how partisans peddling the party line distort everything to fit their one-eyed perspective.

The primary reason why slavery is considered wrong today is because those who had a biblical worldview argued and campaigned against it.

While we could discuss that all day, that wasn't my point.

How do you know Willberforce and all the other Christians arguing that slavery is wrong aren't misunderstanding the Bible?

You seem to assume they aren't because their morality is in line with your morality, even if it seems a mile away from those who actually wrote the Old Testament.

PDN wrote: »

Real history tells us that Christians said, "My interpretation of Scripture tells me slavery is wrong - now let's roll up our sleeves and convince society of that fact."

Yes. And how do you know their interpretation of scripture wasn't a colossal mistake?

You agree I presume, that people mis-interpret scripture all the time, including to bring scriptural interpretation closer to their modern (whether it is 20th century homosexuals or 18th century abolishists) sensibilities.

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 05:59PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Check out Paul Copan's book: "Is God a moral monster?"

He goes into the very areas you're talking about. Well worth the read.

Thanks for that. But to save me having to buy and read a book on the topic, I'm wondering how the average, run of the mill Christian interprets the blood, gore and worse contained within the pages of the book of their faith.

PDN · 28-11-2011 06:01PM

Zombrex wrote: »

While we could discuss that all day, that wasn't my point.

How do you know Willberforce and all the other Christians arguing that slavery is wrong aren't misunderstanding the Bible?

You seem to assume they aren't because their morality is in line with your morality, even if it seems a mile away from those who actually wrote the Old Testament.

No, I assume it because their methods of interpretation are consistent and coherent - as opposed to those of agenda-driven atheists who will dishonestly argue that black is white if by doing so they can possible portray Christianity in a negative light.

Yes. And how do you know their interpretation of scripture wasn't a colossal mistake?

If you think it was a colossal mistake then you are free to advocate the reintroduction of slavery. But go and do it another forum please.

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 06:10PM

PDN wrote: »

It's from Psalm 137 (the Rivers of Babylon one that Boney M turned into a hit). It is a line in a song that describes the frustration of an oppressed people who are being used as a slaves in a foreign land. They struggle with waiting in faith for God to fulfill His promise to free them, and with the temptation to resort to violence against their oppressors.

I'm sorry but I'm still confused as to how "dashing little ones against the rocks" is justified. Could you clarify the story? Who's little ones are they throwing and why??

PDN wrote: »

Which, for those of us who want to live in the real world and help people in similar ethical dilemmas, is very relevant indeed. Maybe you should stop trying to look at the Bible as a set of easy answers, and see it as a grown-up book for people who see Christianity being advanced by wrestling with real issues.

I'm not looking for a set of easy answers in the bible, I'm just trying to understand how others find answers in it, and how real issues can be wrestled with passages such as this.

Zombrex · 28-11-2011 06:11PM

PDN wrote: »

No, I assume it because their methods of interpretation are consistent and coherent - as opposed to those of agenda-driven atheists who will dishonestly argue that black is white if by doing so they can possible portray Christianity in a negative light.

Yes, I kinda figured it would be pointless discussing this with you. I gave you chance, oh well.

My question was actually directed as Newsite, and since you clearly have nothing sensible to contribute I'll step back from giving you another platform to have yet another rant about "agenda driven atheists"

PDN · 28-11-2011 06:25PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm still confused as to how "dashing little ones against the rocks" is justified. Could you clarify the story? Who's little ones are they throwing and why??

Nobody's little ones are being thrown anywhere.

The Israelites, in exile in Babylon, are venting their anger against their enemies who had conquered them, killing many of their children in the process. They are saying, "It would serve them right if someone would do the same thing to them, treating their children the way that they treated our children."

I'm looking for a set of easy answers in the bible, I'm just trying to understand how others find answers in it, and how real issues can be wrestled with passages such as this.

Last Sunday I was talking to a man called Joseph who was forced to watch his wife being raped by rebels at gunpoint. Several of his children were murdered. He had felt very like the Israelites in Psalm 137. He had wanted to see those who had hurt him suffer like he had suffered.

We talked about how his feelings had changed as a result of becoming a Christian. How he had learned to forgive, as Jesus forgave those who crucified him.

We err greatly if we see the Bible as a collection of magic spells, or unrelated commands, where you pull one out of the bag and take no account of where it occurs in the overall narrative.

The Bible is a record of God's dealings with His people. It is expressed in history, proverbs and poetry. And it shows how many previously unresolved issues are resolved with the coming of Jesus.

So, Psalm 137 helps people like Joseph to see their anger and hate as natural human responses to oppression and injustice, but then leads them on to the end of the story where a better response can be developed.

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 06:36PM

PDN wrote: »

Nobody's little ones are being thrown anywhere.

The Israelites, in exile in Babylon, are venting their anger against their enemies who had conquered them, killing many of their children in the process. They are saying, "It would serve them right if someone would do the same thing to them, treating their children the way that they treated our children."

So is this promoting an eye for an eye?

PDN wrote: »

Last Sunday I was talking to a man called Joseph who was forced to watch his wife being raped by rebels at gunpoint. Several of his children were murdered. He had felt very like the Israelites in Psalm 137. He had wanted to see those who had hurt him suffer like he had suffered.

We talked about how his feelings had changed as a result of becoming a Christian. How he had learned to forgive, as Jesus forgave those who crucified him.

We err greatly if we see the Bible as a collection of magic spells, or unrelated commands, where you pull one out of the bag and take no account of where it occurs in the overall narrative.

The Bible is a record of God's dealings with His people. It is expressed in history, proverbs and poetry. And it shows how many previously unresolved issues are resolved with the coming of Jesus.

So, Psalm 137 helps people like Joseph to see their anger and hate as natural human responses to oppression and injustice, but then leads them on to the end of the story where a better response can be developed.

But the main problem I have with this is that the Bible wasn't written in one go. The bible is made up of many books, each written individually, over a very long period of time. The people who wrote the earlier parts of the bible didn't know how the later parts would turn out. Can I then conclude that the of the people who wrote the earlier parts of the Bible meant them literally? And their message was to actually dash the little children against the rocks. For they certainly didn't write the bible because they knew in 2000 years time there would be people they could cheer up. Or is there another even "better understanding"?

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 06:39PM

By the way this is my first thread. I'm a noob. I'm so happy people are replying

PDN · 28-11-2011 06:42PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

So is this promoting an eye for an eye?

No, it's not 'promoting' anything, other than the fact that this is how those guys in exile in Babylon felt.

But the main problem I have with this is that the Bible wasn't written in one go. The bible is made up of many books, each written individually, over a very long period of time. The people who wrote the earlier parts of the bible didn't know how the later parts would turn out. Can I then conclude that the message of the people who wrote the earlier parts of the Bible meant them literally? Or is there a "better understanding"?

The Christianity Forum deals with how the Bible is now - not how Jews may have interpreted bits of the Bible earlier.

Christians believe that the books of the Bible, although written at different times by different authors, were guided and inspired by the same Holy Spirit to form an overall whole.

I would imagine that the guys who wrote the song of Psalm 137 would have been quite happy if some other foreign army had taken their song literally and brained a few Babylonian babies - but your OP suggested that you wanted to discuss how Christians view it today.

Soul Winner · 28-11-2011 06:57PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Thanks for that. But to save me having to buy and read a book on the topic, I'm wondering how the average, run of the mill Christian interprets the blood, gore and worse contained within the pages of the book of their faith.

On the face of it we don't like them, but once you get into the meat and bones of the stories you will find that God is simply acting in accordance with His own nature. What He commands His people to do is an extension of His own hand on history. Of course if He doesn't exist then what His people did in His name was as evil an act as what the Nazi did in WWII in the name of their state. However if He does exist then what they did was carry out their moral obligations under their God. God cannot hold them to account for it because He commanded them to do it. They literally became an extension of His hand. But be that as it may we still don't like what happened and don't very much like to read these disturbing stories, but we are not His judge. He is not on trial, we are. He even wiped out everybody over 20 years of age of His own people because they had this very attitude towards him for 40 years. They were forever putting Him on trial and murmuring about His dealings with them until after 40 years He had enough of them and wiped them out too. If He exists then better to be on His side having life than to be against Him having death. This might seem out of touch with modern thought but why should we worry about modern thought when we have a Just and Righteous God to contend with? If you don't believe He exists then its easy to rage against these things in the OT but if you believe He does exist then it hardly matters what modern thought has to say on things.

Does that shed some light on things for you?

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 07:00PM

PDN wrote: »

The Christianity Forum deals with how the Bible is now - not how Jews may have interpreted bits of the Bible earlier.

Christians believe that the books of the Bible, although written at different times by different authors, were guided and inspired by the same Holy Spirit to form an overall whole.

I would imagine that the guys who wrote the song of Psalm 137 would have been quite happy if some other foreign army had taken their song literally and brained a few Babylonian babies - but your OP suggested that you wanted to discuss how Christians view it today.

But that's the thing though. At the time it was written, it was intended literally. Now however, the social norms have changed and with them people's interpretation of the Bible. Because what was acceptable back then no longer is today. So how then, with the knowledge that it was written literally, can one view it as symbolic?

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 07:11PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

On the face of it we don't like them, but once you get into the meat and bones of the stories you will find that God is simply acting in accordance with His own nature. What He commands His people to do is an extension of His own hand on history. Of course if He doesn't exist then what His people did in His name was as evil an act as what the Nazi did in WWII in the name of their state. However if He does exist then what they did was carry out their moral obligations under their God. God cannot hold them to account for it because He commanded them to do it. They literally became an extension of His hand. But be that as it may we still don't like what happened and don't very much like to read these disturbing stories, but we are not His judge. He is not on trial, we are. He even wiped out everybody over 20 years of age of His own people because they had this very attitude towards him for 40 years. They were forever putting Him on trial and murmuring about His dealings with them until after 40 years He had enough of them and wiped them out too. If He exists then better to be on His side having life than to be against Him having death. This might seem out of touch with modern thought but why should we worry about modern thought when we have a Just and Righteous God to contend with? If you don't believe He exists then its easy to rage against these things in the OT but if you believe He does exist then it hardly matters what modern thought has to say on things.

Does that shed some light on things for you?

It shed's light on the mentality of the believers anyway. I don't see how you can believe that a god that is "Just and Righteous" and yet kill all of his followers under twenty, for whatever reason! If he does exist and is truly as terrible an entity as described in the OT then I think perhaps I'd prefer to rebel. But If he exists and is actually as just, righteous, kind and caring as claimed elsewhere in the Bible then the horrific accounts in the OT contradict that entirely.

PDN · 28-11-2011 07:15PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

But that's the thing though. At the time it was written, it was intended literally. Now however, the social norms have changed and with them people's interpretation of the Bible. Because what was acceptable back then no longer is today. So how then, with the knowledge that it was written literally, can one view it as symbolic?

It is not viewed as symbolic. It is viewed as a wish of someone, who lived thousands of years ago, expressed in a line of a song, that the people who had hurt him would be similarly hurt.

The fact that we don't view it today as an example to follow is nothing to do with social norms - in fact Joseph, by forgiving those who raped his wife, defied the social norms that prevail in his region of the Congo. We view the verse differently today because Jesus came, and Jesus is absolutely central to how Christians read and understand the Bible (the theological term for this is Christcentric).

Ciaran0 · 28-11-2011 07:35PM

PDN wrote: »

It is not viewed as symbolic. It is viewed as a wish of someone, who lived thousands of years ago, expressed in a line of a song, that the people who had hurt him would be similarly hurt.

The fact that we don't view it today as an example to follow is nothing to do with social norms - in fact Joseph, by forgiving those who raped his wife, defied the social norms that prevail in his region of the Congo. We view the verse differently today because Jesus came, and Jesus is absolutely central to how Christians read and understand the Bible (the theological term for this is Christcentric).

Ok. That's reasonable enough, I'll accept that and concede that point. But what about the countless other examples? I don't want to insult your or anyone's faith, but quite frankly I think the Bible is full of rubbish. Do the contradictions not confuse your faith at all?

PDN · 28-11-2011 08:07PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Ok. That's reasonable enough, I'll accept that and concede that point. But what about the countless other examples? I don't want to insult your or anyone's faith, but quite frankly I think the Bible is full of rubbish. Do the contradictions not confuse your faith at all?

I've been studying the Bible for thirty years - and I've heard many people claim it is full of contradictions. When pressed, however, they never come up with a genuine contradiction.

We've been round the houses on this so many times on this forum. What generally happens is that an anti-Christian points out what they think is a contradiction. Then I or another Christian point out that there are perfectly plausible interpretations of the passages that don't involve any contradiction at all. Then the anti-Christian argues till they are blue in the face that the one interpretation that would involve a contradiction must be the true one (even though they display woeful ignorance in the whole area of biblical syudies and theology, and generally offer no rationale as to why that one interpretation is the correct one, other than that is serves their purposes in trying to manufacture a contradiction).

My faith is certainly not confused by the fact that you hold a subjective opinion that the Bible is full of rubbish.

irishh_bob · 28-11-2011 08:23PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It shed's light on the mentality of the believers anyway. I don't see how you can believe that a god that is "Just and Righteous" and yet kill all of his followers under twenty, for whatever reason! If he does exist and is truly as terrible an entity as described in the OT then I think perhaps I'd prefer to rebel. But If he exists and is actually as just, righteous, kind and caring as claimed elsewhere in the Bible then the horrific accounts in the OT contradict that entirely.

when you see all the famine , war and suffering in this world , what evidence have you that god is kind , just and caring ? , if believers of all faiths were not going around claiming the guy is nicer than daniel o donell , would you see him - her - it, in this way

PDN · 28-11-2011 08:26PM

irishh_bob wrote: »

when you see all the famine , war and suffering in this world , what evidence have you that god is kind , just and caring ? , if believers of all faiths were not going around claiming the guy is nicer than daniel o donell , would you see him - her - it, in this way

That is all evidence that man is capable of doing terrible things - which confirms what the Bible tells us about the nature of man.

Fanny Cradock · 28-11-2011 08:34PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Thanks for that. But to save me having to buy and read a book on the topic, I'm wondering how the average, run of the mill Christian interprets the blood, gore and worse contained within the pages of the book of their faith.

You can listen to an interview with him here.

Should the Bible be reviewed?

Comments