Misuse of "Scripture"

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi JAK, from your post:
Historically, as far back as we wish to find interpretations for biblical scripts, those interpretations have been used for political, moral, etc. purposes.

Why was that a “misuse” any more than some use today?

The entire Bible is a composite construction of more writers than we can name or for which we can account. The many obvious contradictions were written by different individuals under the auspices of different political power. And we have the many translations which seem to have no end as years advance.

The various uses were for purposes deemed necessary or correct by the power structures which use them. As the religion became more organized, Christianity used scripture to control and convert. Kings used scripture to support the divine right. As well, the Bible was used for the other things listed in your letter-quote.

It would be difficult to argue that the Bible was not used and is not still being used for purposes of special interests.

Your title implies there is a correct use. What’s that?

How is the correct use determined?
Who or what group makes determination of correct use?

Roger, I "think" I should like to see your affirmative argument for correct use.

I'm skeptical that it will be any more than another addition to the many arguments throughout the history of the religion. That could be said for anyone else who wishes to attempt a "new" interpretation and claim that it is correct.

JAK



Good points! The title is simply repearing Spong. As for "correct use?" i'm thinking>>>>>>>

Well there are some good stories running a long gamut through fiction to nonfiction: Drama, tragedy, comedy, pornography, horror, si-fi, bios, history. Some sage advice; social commentary; self-help; DIY faith promotion. As well there are DIY guilt & fear arrousing--not good.

Taken for what it is, it has played a most significant role in who and what humanity is. WE can't go back. Nor do i want to. We can, and are, as always moving--forward? I tend to think so. What do You think JAK? Warm regards, Roger
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Misuse of "Scripture"

Post by _JAK »

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi JAK, from your post:
Historically, as far back as we wish to find interpretations for biblical scripts, those interpretations have been used for political, moral, etc. purposes.

Why was that a “misuse” any more than some use today?

The entire Bible is a composite construction of more writers than we can name or for which we can account. The many obvious contradictions were written by different individuals under the auspices of different political power. And we have the many translations which seem to have no end as years advance.

The various uses were for purposes deemed necessary or correct by the power structures which use them. As the religion became more organized, Christianity used scripture to control and convert. Kings used scripture to support the divine right. As well, the Bible was used for the other things listed in your letter-quote.

It would be difficult to argue that the Bible was not used and is not still being used for purposes of special interests.

Your title implies there is a correct use. What’s that?

How is the correct use determined?
Who or what group makes determination of correct use?

Roger, I "think" I should like to see your affirmative argument for correct use.

I'm skeptical that it will be any more than another addition to the many arguments throughout the history of the religion. That could be said for anyone else who wishes to attempt a "new" interpretation and claim that it is correct.

JAK



Good points! The title is simply repearing Spong. As for "correct use?" I'm thinking>>>>>>>

Well there are some good stories running a long gamut through fiction to nonfiction: Drama, tragedy, comedy, pornography, horror, si-fi, bios, history. Some sage advice; social commentary; self-help; DIY faith promotion. As well there are DIY guilt & fear arrousing--not good.

Taken for what it is, it has played a most significant role in who and what humanity is. WE can't go back. Nor do I want to. We can, and are, as always moving--forward? I tend to think so. What do You think JAK? Warm regards, Roger


Hi Roger,

Quite so on several points. We cannot go back and replay history. We are moving “forward” as well.

At the same time, the move forward like the move to wealth (we previously explored) is by no means universal or with universal benefit, or in this case with universal correctness.

Of course the more metaphor is the interpretation of choice for such scripts as those in the Bible or the Koran, the fewer absolutes that can be drawn by the pundits of the scripts.

Conversely, the more literal the interpretation, the more absolute the dogma(s). I am skeptical of reduction to metaphor with regard to what was scripted, polished (as it were) though politics and power, and translated to conform to particular doctrine(s) or to perpetuate (invent) them.

Those who argue that biblical scripts were merely metaphor are engaged in weasel words for their own purposes.

For example, the notion that the first scripting of the creation stories was merely metaphor is not in keeping with the level of information and knowledge when it occurred. Today, some of the metaphor interpreters are fond of linking biblical scripts which are far removed from each other as well as far removed from authorship. Such individuals produce their inventions of what the original authors were thinking.

It’s convenient for them as they hammer out their own interpretations linking the irrelevant post hoc and ad hoc equations to make the script(s) say what they want said.

Regardless of your intent to connect to Spong, I think the title is misleading for the reasons I previously articulated. The title assumes in the word “misuse” that a correct use is to be known or that it exists. Many religious organizations would argue just that. The Roman Catholic Church is a prime example.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

John Shelby Spong Biblical Scholar

Post by _JAK »

richardMdBorn stated:
Anyone who thinks that Spong is a scholar would do well to review...”


Anyone who thinks Spong is not scholarly would do well to review: WikipediA.

In part, the on-line encyclopedia states:

“He is a liberal theologian, biblical scholar, religion commentator and author. He promotes traditionally liberal causes, such as racial equality. He also calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief, away from theism and from the afterlife as reward or punishment for human behavior. Some conservative Christians consider his views radical and that he is not Christian at all. However, he is representative of a tradition of dissenting theologians like John A.T. Robinson, and Don Cupitt which has been a component of Christianity and especially the Anglican tradition.”

Given John Shelby Spong’s biography and role, he qualifies as a biblical scholar. Please read the entire biography in the link.

I am keeping in mind that biblical scholars do not agree with one another. Over time, Christianity is a most fractured religion.

Among the most obvious reasons for this is biblical ambiguity and contradiction. In addition there are extraordinary claims which lack any evidence for support -- let alone extraordinary evidence.

“Correct interpretation” is a myth. Ambiguity prevails over notions of “correct interpretation.” It is evidence that demonstrates that the religion is fractured by multiple interpretations set forward as if they were the only true interpretation. Such claims are themselves ambiguous.

As a result, “The Battle for God” (book title) is waged by biblical scholars of different persuasions.

Proof-texting is a favorite technique of gee whiz Bible blokes as well as well schooled and/or well indoctrinated Bible scholars.

Published books

Bishop Spong during CrossWalk America, 2006
· 1973 - Honest Prayer
· 1974 - This Hebrew Lord
· 1975 - Christpower
· 1975 - Dialogue: In Search of Jewish-Christian Understanding
· 1976 - Life Approaches Death: A Dialogue on Ethics in Medicine
· 1980 - The Easter Moment
· 1983 - Into the Whirlwind: The Future of the Church,
· 1986 - Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments (co-authored with Denise G. Haines, Archdeacon)
· 1987 - Consciousness and Survival: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into the possibility of Life Beyond Biological Death (edited by John S. Spong, introduction by Claiborne Pell)
· 1988 - Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality
· 1991 - Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture
· 1992 - Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus
· 1994 - Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity
· 1996 - Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes
· 1999 - Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile
· 2001 - Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality
· 2002 - A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born
· 2005 - The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love
· 2007 - Jesus for the Non-Religious
(WikipediA)

JAK
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi JAK, thanks for your above post. I hope Richard sees/reads it... Warm regards, Roger
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

you can document cases where virgins concieve: Suzanne Somers concieved her first child without intercourse. Things had to get messy in the back seat first and hands and fingers went exploring but in the end, no intercourse and a pregnant teen.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Not a First

Post by _JAK »

thestyleguy wrote:you can document cases where virgins concieve: Suzanne Somers concieved her first child without intercourse. Things had to get messy in the back seat first and hands and fingers went exploring but in the end, no intercourse and a pregnant teen.


Throughout all of human history, you surely don’t consider that Suzanne Somers is a first for pregnancy absent sexual intercourse or the first virgin to become pregnant.

If you do, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.

JAK
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

My new comments are in bold

Literalist definition - "person who adheres to the exact literal meaning..."

I believe in interpreting the Bible according to its genre. Wisdom literature, such as Pslams, Proverbs, Job, etc., is to interpreted in a different manner from historical passages. Since historical passages in the Bible contain miracles, I believe in these miracles.

RM: BUT, Luke went beyond his knowledge and accepted the idea of a miraculous, virgin birth. Now if I understand You, you take literally the virgin birth story as told in the birth myth. Am I correct in that?

Yes, I’m guilty if charged in believing in the virgin conception. :)

Richard I think you might be attempting some trickery hera :-0 by referring the the old "Literalist thread" to this "Misuse of Scripture thread". Your idea being to discredit Spong's "Scholarship".

In which you are not doing well, IMSCO that is...

I note that you did not offer any rebuttals to my points about the divine right of kings, etc. Perhaps you could explain why I am not doing well rather than just asserting it

Hi JAK,

A biblical scholar is accurate and careful in his treatment of the text. Do you think that Spong is correct n his comment
Indeed, they listed the virgin birth in the number two position. It must be difficult for them to realize that there is no reputable biblical scholar of world rank today, either Catholic or Protestant, who still treats the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as literal history, not a single one
.

If writing a number of books makes Spong a scholar, what about D.A. Carson who has a Doctor of Philosophy in the New Testament from Cambridge University:

Dr. Carson has written or edited more than 45 books, including The Sermon on the Mount (Baker 1978), Exegetical Fallacies (Baker 1984), Matthew (Zondervan 1984), From Triumphalism to Maturity (Baker 1984), Showing the Spirit (Baker 1987), How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Baker 1990), The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans 1991), A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Baker 1992), New Testament Commentary Survey (Baker 1993). His book, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan 1996), won the 1997 Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Award in the category "theology and doctrine." He coauthored An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan 1991) and other works. His edited works include It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge University Press 1988) and Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (Sheffield Academic Press 1993).His new books is "Being Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications". Dr. Carson occasionally writes and edits with faculty colleague John Woodbridge; together they wrote the novel Letters Along the Way (Crossway 1993) and edited Scripture and Truth (Baker 1992) and God and Culture (Eerdmans 1993).

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... arson.html

Carson believes in the virgin birth and his academic credentials are better than Spong’s. Yet Spong asserts that no reputable scholar treats the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as literal history.

We’ve been through this before, but I’m surprised that you don’t get my point. Literalism is not always the issue! Spong asserts that, “today, we know that virgins do not conceive". I agree with his statement apart from a miracle. Spong appears to believe that these types of miracles CANNOT occur. I disagree with folks such as Hume here. The Luke passage shows that he also knew that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” If a person asserts that passage A does not teach B, and the passage clearly teaches it, the question of literalism does not arise. Spong asserts for the biblical authors, ”the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood”. Well, Luke clearly understood that virgins did not ordinarily conceive.

RM: BUT, Luke went beyond his knowledge and accepted the idea of a miraculous, virgin birth. Now if I understand You, you take literally the virgin birth story as told in the birth myth. Am I correct in that?

Yes but that does not support Spong’s point that Luke did not understand the mysteries of reproduction. He obviously did not know about DNA, but he did know that, apart from a miracle, a baby had a mother and a father.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Richard, as to the Divine Right of Kings... Although i'm having some difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make??? Pasted below i think might be relevant:

King James I, Works
(On the Divine Right of Kings)
Chapter 20

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:

First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office.

Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.

And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

From King James I, Works, (1609).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOURCE: World Civilizations
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history ... lprs20.htm
Page created by Thomas Pearcy, Ph.D and Mary Dickson.
Direct questions or comments to Webmaster.
Last revised February 4, 1997
Copyright (c) 1997. W. W. Norton Publishing. All Rights Reserved


As for "...not doing well..." it is in your attempt to discredit Spong. I appreciate that you do not agree with Spong in many, if any, ways. So be it. Others do. I think he is closer to the truth of Judeo-Christianism--as it is-- than are many other "Scholars".

Is there 'a', or any, subjects that does/do not have those "Scholars" for and against it? You say:

I believe in interpreting the Bible according to its genre. Wisdom literature, such as Pslams, Proverbs, Job, etc., is to interpreted in a different manner from historical passages. Since historical passages in the Bible contain miracles, I believe in these miracles.


Makes sense to me. Do you think Job was a historical person, as many do? I'm trying to get a handle on how you seperate the genre. Personally i would not group Job with Psalms or Proverbs, as you appear to do??

Are we getting to the point of agreeing to disagree, agreeably :-) ???? Warm regards, Roger
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Interpretations

Post by _JAK »

Regarding Post Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:08 pm of richardMdBorn

For the moment, I’ll let Roger address your comments to him. I know nothing about the old Literalist thread referenced.

Previously, I addressed some comments directed to me. You present no refutation here.

richardMdBorn stated:
A biblical scholar is accurate and careful in his treatment of the text. Do you think that Spong is correct n his comment


Previously in post dated: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:21 pm

JAK:
{“Correct interpretation” is a myth. Ambiguity prevails over notions of “correct interpretation.” It is evidence that demonstrates that the religion is fractured by multiple interpretations set forward as if they were the only true interpretation. Such claims are themselves ambiguous.}

Had you quoted the above, you would have a response to your question (absent a question mark)

Currently, we have more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian. In many of those groups are individuals who might be regarded as scholarly. They don’t agree. Virtually all who make claims claim that their view (interpretation) is correct.

What someone regards as story to illustrate, another regards as literal. Hence, ambiguity in the interpretations.

Couple that with the many contradictions in the total (66 books) of the Bible written by many, translated by many, used for special interest purposes, and we have cacophony. Please examine the various internal links to the website here.

Right-wing fundamentalist/literalists claim their “scholars.”
Left-wing liberal/metaphorists claim their “scholars.”

And there is a plethora between whatever extremes we can identify of those who declare that they are Christian or that their truth is the correct one.
----------------
Here you have a “Quote” from no identified source that I see. It’s not from me.

richardMdBorn stated:
If writing a number of books makes Spong a scholar, what about D.A. Carson who has a Doctor of Philosophy in the New Testament from Cambridge University:


O.J. Simpson wrote a book. No one argued that books published made one a scholar. It’s a straw man argument. There are many books by right-wing fundamentalists. That does not make them reliable.

And after-the-fact by many decades, claims for “miracles” are unreliable. Indeed, we should also add many centuries of hand copying should invite the greatest skepticism regarding historical accuracy.

richardMdBorn stated:
I believe in these miracles.
And later:

richardMdBorn stated:
Yes, I’m guilty if charged in believing in the virgin conception.


You can believe whatever you wish. The extraordinary claim of “Immaculate Conception” was made decades after the happening was alleged to have occurred. In any case, no credible evidence for any over-writing of science has been established.

We have religious myth and religious dogma in such claims.

Careful study by those previously indoctrinated doesn’t make for credibility.

For objectivity, we should require that study to be done by individuals with no special interest in the outcome of the examination. For example: An indoctrinated Roman Catholic “scholar” who maintains the approval of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Institution is not an objective observer of biblical scripts or religious doctrine.

We could say that for any individual who operates from within the box of the religious mythology from which he comes.

richardMdBorn stated:
Carson believes in the virgin birth and his academic credentials are better than Spong’s. Yet Spong asserts that no reputable scholar treats the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as literal history.


What Carson believes seems irrelevant. No evidence supports “virgin birth” (as it was interpreted centuries ago). Some more recent translations use the term “young woman”.

We have had many translations of the Bible. However, since the printing press, those translations have been more easily available.

Prior to 1200, almost no one except the very few could read or write.
Biblical contradictions might have been edited out if earlier scripts could have been easily proof-read. However, I would be skeptical of that.

Keep in mind that history is a point of view. The British “history” of the behavior and purposes of the early colonies (now the USA) is different from the “history” of people from George Washington forward on this side of the Atlantic.

Had not our cultural heritage of emperors and kings not been what it was, Christianity might not have survived at all. But, as a result of power, politics, and the perpetuation of Christian mythology, we have many forms of Christianity today.

RM: BUT, Luke went beyond his knowledge and accepted the idea of a miraculous, virgin birth. Now if I understand You, you take literally the virgin birth story as told in the birth myth. Am I correct in that?

richardMdBorn stated:
Yes but that does not support Spong’s point that Luke did not understand the mysteries of reproduction. He obviously did not know about DNA, but he did know that, apart from a miracle, a baby had a mother and a father.


JAK:
Keep in mind that none of this story was recorded at or even near the time. The direct quotes could not have been known. The stories, whatever they were, are not reliable. No one was there to record the words verbatim. And even if that could have been possible, the accuracy could not be established.

Even with television (video & audio) today, we don’t agree on what someone said or what he meant by what he said. And we have the exact words. So the notion that biblical scripts are accurate verbatim is an extraordinary claim absent evidence for the claim.

That you take literally a story not recorded until long after the story was supposed to have occurred is an irrational conclusion. No evidence supports the conclusion.

Beliefs here are irrelevant. We cannot access any facts beyond biblical stories. And we can access that translations over the past 500 years alone do not agree.

What is relevant about Luke is that he wasn’t there. The emergence of the virgin birth myth was an invention to perpetuate the extraordinary claims. Today, we have translations of the Bible which use “young woman” in place of “virgin.” The defense of that translation is that, as a matter of fact, there is no way to know, and “virgin” had a specific meaning.

No evidence has been established for God claims -- extraordinary claims. Lacking that, there is no evidence established for the claimed entity doing anything.

JAK
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

Roger Morrison wrote:


Makes sense to me. Do you think Job was a historical person, as many do? I'm trying to get a handle on how you seperate the genre. Personally I would not group Job with Psalms or Proverbs, as you appear to do??

Are we getting to the point of agreeing to disagree, agreeably :-) ???? Warm regards, Roger[/quote]Hi Roger,
I think that the issue of whether or not miracles occurred is much more important than the argument about the historicity of Job. What are your major objections to miracles?
Post Reply