Board index ‹ Bible

[Chaim]

First of all the Bible was never written period. These texts were compiled by church councils, we all know that.

So there is no reason to take a single text like Paul’s letter to Timothy and say the Bible as we know it, wasn’t what Paul meant by “scripture”. At best that letter would have meant the Torah and possibly some prophetic writings.

Furthermore we could add in other ancient scriptures like the Vedas or the Tao te Ching which are quite harmonious with the Bible in part and could have been considered “scripture” depending on the time and place of the Bible’s compilation.

I would argue the book of Job has nothing to do with the majority of the Bible, but was recognized as a “scripture”. You could throw in proverbs in that category of scripture that wasn’t part of the Torah or Jewish prophets.

To clarify my main topic of debate here is the interpretation of the Bible as “literal fact” vs. “eternal truth” in the sense of all other great allegory and literature is eternally “true” even when not “factual”.

The Bible never self declares as a literal document. The majority of it only reads as allegory. And I posit the argument that when it does read like or coincide with “facts” that the mythological understanding is what matters.

[jimwalton]

> The Bible was not written to be read literally.

The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible seriously, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

> First of all the Bible was never written period. These texts were compiled by church councils, we all know that.

This is false. The Septuagint shows us that the Old Testament was in complete form by 200 BC. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms the written text of the OT. The DSS contain at least some fragment of every book (and in some cases a complete book) except Esther.

We have New Testament manuscripts from as early as AD 125, and many fragments from before the time of the church councils. As you admit that the church councils were compilers rather than writers, you admit that the written texts existed. In reality, the church councils were gatekeepers, not compilers. There are many evidences (Hermas, Papias, Pantaenus, Tatian, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Tertullian, et al.) of biblical documents long before the church councils.

> So there is no reason to take a single text like Paul’s letter to Timothy and say the Bible as we know it, wasn’t what Paul meant by “scripture”.

So this is incorrect also. Paul is referring to the Old Testament, which was in place and recognized as authoritative.

> I would argue the book of Job has nothing to do with the majority of the Bible, but was recognized as a “scripture”.

The book of Job definitely has something to do with the rest of the Bible as it weighs God's character and policies.

> You could throw in proverbs in that category of scripture that wasn’t part of the Torah or Jewish prophets.

It was recognized as part of Scripture in the category of Jewish wisdom literature, along with Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

> The Bible never self declares as a literal document.

I don't even know what this means or what you mean by it. Do you mean that for the Bible to be authoritative it has to say, "This writing is authoritative"? Because it HAS done that (Dt. 4.2; 2 Tim. 3.16, etc.).

> The majority of it only reads as allegory.

This is also incorrect. See above. Much of the Bible is historical. Much is theological. Some is allegorical, some parabolic, some metaphorical, some simile, some ...

> And I posit the argument that when it does read like or coincide with “facts” that the mythological understanding is what matters.

The Bible diverges quite distinctly from mythography and shares little to nothing in common with it. Obviously we need to talk more, so let's discuss this further.

[Chaim]

The Bible wasn’t written, it was compiled. This is known. When they wrote these letters they couldn’t have known they were writing “the Bible” they were addressing what was at hand.

You don’t know what Paul was referring to. It’s probably the Old Testament but you can’t know that.

The book of job doesn’t have anything to do with the storyline of Israel. By this logic any other wise theological writing could have been added.

And nothing in the Bible itself indicates it is intended as literal. But Jesus said he teaches only in parables. Paul refers to the OT as an allegory.

[jimwalton]

> The Bible wasn’t written, it was compiled.

First of all, nothing can be compiled unless it already exists in written form. Second, it was written before it was compiled because we have enough fragments and manuscripts to prove that.

> When they wrote these letters they couldn’t have known they were writing “the Bible” they were addressing what was at hand.

The books of the prophets are filled with, "And the Lord said...", so they knew they were writing the words of God to be kept for future use (such as Exodus 17.14, and many others, such as 2 Peter 3.15-16).

> You don’t know what Paul was referring to. It’s probably the Old Testament but you can’t know that.

Sure we know what Paul was referring to. Words have meaning and context. The term he used is often used of the Old Testament. He is referring to the writings of the Old Testament as Scripture.

> The book of job doesn’t have anything to do with the storyline of Israel.

Correct. It's not biographical or historical, but philosophical and theological. Song of Songs is the same way, as is Ecclesiastes.

> By this logic any other wise theological writing could have been added.

But no other theological writing WAS added. There were many choices, but only some were included—the ones recognized as authoritative for Scripture.

> And nothing in the Bible itself indicates it is intended as literal.

Sure it is. Proverbs 30.33 says the twisting of your nose can make it bleed. Genesis 24.30 says the servant put jewelry on the girl. Daniel 1.1 says Nebuchadnezzar besieged Babylon. The Gospels say Pilate crucified Jesus. The Gospels say Herod was ruler over Judea. There are THOUSANDS of these literal verses in the Bible.

> But Jesus said he teaches only in parables.

Jesus taught in parables but not only in parables. When Jesus healed the centurion's servant (Mt. 8.5-13), it wasn't a parable. When Jesus taught his disciples he was going to be crucified, that wasn't a parable. There are hundreds of these.

> Paul refers to the OT as an allegory.

This is untrue also. In Acts 13.16-22, he gives a historical overview of OT history. He's not using it as an allegory at all.

[Chaim]

I understand you can’t compile until it’s written, the point is that the Bible was decided seperate from the writing.

“And the Lord said” could refer to a number of things and opens a new debate on the OT understanding of GOD.

Many writings bedside the Bible are considered scripture, we don’t know if Paul knew of these or not.

My point stands that other scriptures could have been and weren’t included, so the “all scripture” statements in Timothy doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible or JUST the Bible.

As I said the Bible May or May not coincide with factual events. As other fictional literature may include actual events in a dramatized or plain fashion.

Paul refers to Sarah and Hagar SPECIFICALLY as an allegory Galatians 4:21.

[jimwalton]

> I understand you can’t compile until it’s written, the point is that the Bible was decided seperate from the writing.

Then I don't know what your point is. Obviously the Bible was written before it was compiled, because you can't compile something that isn't there. And obviously the books of the Bible have been assembled into a compendium of 66 books in one volume.

But that neither requires that it's not authoritative or that "the Bible was never written period." That claim is both rash and inaccurate.

> “And the Lord said” could refer to a number of things and opens a new debate on the OT understanding of GOD.

Yet when we read what they meant by it, they mean it's what the Lord told them and they are writing the words of God. It still doesn't require that the Bible was not written to be read literally. You haven't made your case.

> Many writings bedside the Bible are considered scripture, we don’t know if Paul knew of these or not.

You mean from other religions? Of course every religion considers their writings to be sacred scripture. That's where we have to apply tests of truth and not just cast them all off, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

> My point stands that other scriptures could have been and weren’t included, so the “all scripture” statements in Timothy doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible or JUST the Bible.

Then the burden of proof is on you to give evidence that's what Paul meant by it. Paul uses that term (γραφὴ) to refer to the Old Testament dozens of times. What you have to show me is a convincing case where Paul uses that term to refer to other "scriptures" not in the Christian canon.

> As I said the Bible May or May not coincide with factual events. As other fictional literature may include actual events in a dramatized or plain fashion.

That's actually not what you said. I searched back through the thread. What you said is, "nothing in the Bible itself indicates it is intended as literal."

> As other fictional literature may include actual events in a dramatized or plain fashion.

Such "fictional literature" was not part of the world of the Bible. There is no instance of fictional literature in Jewish literature or in the 1st century Palestine. Just because fictional literature is part of our literary context doesn't mean it was part of theirs, because it wasn't. Again, the burden of proof is on you to produce examples of Jewish fiction.

> Paul refers to Sarah and Hagar SPECIFICALLY as an allegory Galatians 4:21.

Of course he does. So what? You can't derive from that that "Paul refers to the OT as an allegory." In some cases, he does. In most cases, he does not.

[Chaim]

My point is “the Bible” is more of a concept that is agreed upon to varying degrees and not a thing dropped from heaven. It was compiled by men. And texts from different religions is just another arbitrary grouping agreed upon by men to varying degrees. I know Indian yogis who teach the Bible. Christians like to throw out the statement “Jesus didn’t teach a religion” but a relationship with GOD.

My overall point is that all of these terms like bible and religion are arbitrarily agreed upon and endlessly argues over (1,000s of denominations) and not some type of divine object.

[jimwalton]

> My point is “the Bible” is more of a concept that is agreed upon to varying degrees and not a thing dropped from heaven.

if it were dropped from heaven, I dare to venture a guess that you wouldn't accept that, either. The Mormons claim that, and few of us believe it. So in the biblical view, God spoke to men who wrote it down and shared it with the world. There is no problem with this as (1) a divine source, or (2) an accurate writing of the message given.

> It was compiled by men.

In a world of humans, there is no other choice. The writings of Mohammad were compiled by men. Does this mean Mohammed didn't write them? Of course not.

> And texts from different religions is just another arbitrary grouping agreed upon by men to varying degrees.

Are you claiming that any writings compiled by humans are just arbitrary and don't have any authority? In that case I should discard all my science and history texts, lawyers should throw away all their law books, and museums should be burned.

> Christians like to throw out the statement “Jesus didn’t teach a religion” but a relationship with GOD.

It's true. Christianity is radically non-religious. There is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrifices.

> My overall point is that all of these terms like bible and religion are arbitrarily agreed upon

There was nothing arbitrary about them. The canon of the Old Testament has never been anything but what it is (there was no dispute, there are not alternative compilations, and no arbitrariness in the process).

The canon of the NT was not compiled by the councils, but instead affirmed by them. The councils recognized officially, in the face of heresies and detractors, what had been recognized by the church for centuries. The Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were recognized as authoritative from their writing, their first appearance. Peter alludes to the inspiration of Paul's letters, and there is no evidence that the authenticity or the authority of the Gospels was ever questioned. They only bothered to go through the formal recognition process later, when opposition and heretics kept pushing lies at the Church. The books of the New Testament are not Scripture because the church said they were, but are Scripture because from the time of their composition they bore the mark of divine authority. The New Testament, and in fact the Bible as a whole, is thus a list of authoritative writings rather than an authoritative list of writings. The difference is a subtle but important one.

Thank you for discussing this with me.

[Chaim]

I am not an atheist myself. I have no problem with any of it. The more I study the more I understand the symbolism. I don’t agree with the way Christians wave the Bible around like it’s anything but a book. Christians (most, but not all) believe IN the Bible and not GOD. And I find that most (not all) don’t even know what the Bible is or what it really says. But wave it around like an authority. It’s idolatry in the highest.

[jimwalton]

> I am not an atheist myself.

I couldn't tell what you were from what you were saying, so I wasn't assuming anything.

> The more I study the more I understand the symbolism.

I agree that there's plenty of symbolism in the Bible. Even historical events can have an important symbolism, as the coming American election is being perceived to symbolize the civil war of competing ideologies, and President Trump has long been seen (his entire presidency from the viewpoint of the Left) as a symbol of white oppression.

> Christians (most, but not all) believe IN the Bible and not GOD.

Wow, I've never known a single Christian who subscribes to this perspective.

> And I find that most (not all) don’t even know what the Bible is or what it really says

It is true that too many Christians are woefully uneducated about their own Scriptures, but that's no reflection on the Scriptures. Rather, it's a reflection on the Church and the current state of Christianity.

> But wave it around like an authority.

It IS an authority. 2 Timothy 3.14-17: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

1 Thessalonians 2.13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

2 Timothy 2.15: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

> It’s idolatry in the highest.

Idolatry is putting something in the place of God. When we recognize the authority of the Bible, we are putting it as the very word of God, not as something in the place of God. God has revealed Himself, and God has spoken, and the Bible is the written record of God's authoritative revelation. We are expected to recognize it, study it, meditate on it, honor it, and obey it.

I appreciate you talking to me so much today. The conversation has been good.