1 2 > 
 
   
 

A public forum that establishes the Scientific Study of the Bible

 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 04:27
 

I recall in one (or several) of Harris’ speech that he was attempting, perhaps still is, to foster a larger cultural dialogue that promoted thinking and the elevation of rational discourse. Since I am convinced that any sort of meaningful conversation between theists and atheist must start from the text—- the biblical text serves as the meeting ground—- how might a program that promotes the scientific study of the Bible aid in achieving Harris’ goal of increasing thinking, education, and the conversation of ‘tabooed’ topics as he says?

I am also deeply disappointed at the low level of public education (both on theistic and atheistic sides of the debate) about the Bible. Both the word “Bible” and the biblical texts are so riddled with presuppositions and misuse, abuse, and misunderstanding, that it is even hard to have an intelligent and informed conversation on the topic.   

Can the Bible be studied scientifically and if so what would that entail, and for what purposes might one (a culture) engage in such a study? I am committed to devoting the rest of my career to this endeavor, and hope to start publishing books soon.

By scientific study I mean the objective study of the biblical texts. I have in the past even used the model of science to illuminate this simple methodology. Science, for example, observes the phenomenon of nature, records its data, and formulates an hypothesis that best explains the data under observation. Hypothesis are verified or denied or reformulated depending on the data.

The study of the Bible can proceed along similar lines. I am currently working on a book-length project which attempts to collect a certain type of textual data — contradictions. In biblical studies, apart from the more popular use of this provocative word, the data collected through the Bible’s various contradictions has lead to the conclusion that the Bible is a product of diverse and divergent texts, where authors express their own ideologies, beliefs, and political orientations — and in vast and divergent ways in the 70+ texts written between the 9th c. BC and the early 2nd c. AD, and under vastly different historical circumstances. I can share some of the chapters I’ve written with readers if they’d like. I’m particularly working with the Pentateuch now.

My point: these textual data, the contradictions, strongly support the hypothesis that the Bible is a collection of competing texts, authorial agendas, competing portraits of Israel’s deity, worldviews, theologies and beliefs, etc. This is the fact of the matter really. But this is not my goal; I’m interested in the conversation that ensues from here.

Does this method have legs?

Other hypothesis that I’ve already drawn with the textual data, from the biblical texts, textual data from these texts’ literary contexts (the textual data of ancient Near Eastern texts, etc), and archaeological data — one can put forward a pretty powerful demonstration about what the Bible is and is not, against many of the opinions shared by Christians (and even theists to a lesser extent). As one example, I can demonstrate with textual data—no theologizing—that the Bible itself leads us to conclude that it is not the word of a god, God, or Yahweh. I can go into detail here if need be. Also, being sensitive to such issues, I can also demonstrate, using textual data, how, why, and when the textual tradition started to accredit these texts as the word of God. How this appellation works in other ancient Near Eastern texts, etc.

Does such an approach have merit?

In the public arena, even often in this forum, what is usually discussed is theology or interpretive authoritative traditions that expound what the Bible is, or heresy, what such-and-such faith community has said the Bible is, or one’s personal like or dislike of the Bible due to preconditioned cultural presuppositions, etc. I adamantly believe that studying the Bible with attention to its textual data, and understanding such data in its historical and literary contexts can offer up some meaning dialogue. ...

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17614
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 October 2012 06:26
 

Of course your idea has merit but what makes it different from all the other books that talk about similar topics? I’ve read so many damned books on the bible that they all run together now but pretty much everything you mentioned I’ve read in one book or another.

 
 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 14:37
 

Gad,

I was thinking more of a public forum or institution or group ...

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 15:33
 

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 15:42
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 01:33 PM

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

Mike,

This is actually the line of thinking that I would like to combat. And you seem to sorely miss the point. All your examples of efforts to increase human understanding and scientific knowledge is exactly what I’m talking about. Your failure to see that is endemic to the presuppositions you harbor about what the Bible is or isn’t, what it should be or shouldn’t be, etc. I’m talking about education; you’re talking about education—- you’ve missed the point.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17614
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 October 2012 15:54
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 01:33 PM

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

All great pursuits but unfortunately religion won’t go away by ignoring it. Have you checked out the article Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy that I posted.

Where srd44 says  

I can demonstrate with textual data—no theologizing—that the Bible itself leads us to conclude that it is not the word of a god, God, or Yahweh.

I think that would be powerful stuff. I mean I know there is no god, God, or Yahweh but having something more definitive to point too in arguments would be great. Yes, yes I know the fundies will still believe but such data would undermine and marginalize their beliefs even more.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 16:08
 
srd44 - 23 October 2012 01:42 PM
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 01:33 PM

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

Mike,

This is actually the line of thinking that I would like to combat. And you seem to sorely miss the point. All your examples of efforts to increase human understanding and scientific knowledge is exactly what I’m talking about. Your failure to see that is endemic to the presuppositions you harbor about what the Bible is or isn’t, what it should be or shouldn’t be, etc. I’m talking about education; you’re talking about education—- you’ve missed the point.

No I didn’t miss the point.  All study, education, and pursuit is not of equal value.  There isn’t an understanding of the bible that will ever be intrinsicly important or valuable.  We live in a world of limited resources.  One of the fundamental problems we have as a society is the commitment of these limited resources to layering nuance and study on foolishness.  One dollar commited to “studying” the bible is one too many, particularly where any advancement to be unlocked in that field is completely irrelevant to anything but the sentimenal religious notions that some people continue to harbor.  If all of the funds committed to this kind of crap were stuffed neatly into the change cup of a single alcoholic vagabond, it would be impossible for it to do less good than it does in the hands of the thousands of so-called academics pouring over the supposed history of a single fiction.  There’s simply no excuse for wasting resources on this type of pointless crap.

 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 16:18
 
GAD - 23 October 2012 01:54 PM
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 01:33 PM

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

All great pursuits but unfortunately religion won’t go away by ignoring it. Have you checked out the article Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy that I posted.

Where srd44 says  

I can demonstrate with textual data—no theologizing—that the Bible itself leads us to conclude that it is not the word of a god, God, or Yahweh.

I think that would be powerful stuff. I mean I know there is no god, God, or Yahweh but having something more definitive to point too in arguments would be great. Yes, yes I know the fundies will still believe but such data would undermine and marginalize their beliefs even more.


Fundies will change nothing about their belief based on the revelation of facts, even when those facts emerge from the bible itself.  We have seen this over and over.  I’ll concede that ignoring religion may not cause it to go away, but giving it some kind of credence, authority and respect by treating it as some legitimate area of study worthy of resources and intellectual discussion in the fine “historical” details certainly isn’t going to do the job either.  I suggest that if we have a dollar or an hour to spend, we spend it on something that isn’t polishing a pile of iron-age turds.

 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 16:20
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 02:08 PM
srd44 - 23 October 2012 01:42 PM
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 01:33 PM

What a waste of time.  Why don’t you call it the “Group of People Gathering to Justify srd44’s Wasted Intellectual Pursuits”?  The efforts of this theoretical collection of participants in your “conversation” would be better used actually doing something of value to any field of genuine human concern.  What if the conversation were about improving primary school education, coordinating medical research, preserving and conserving biodiversity, stemming climate change, stabilizing the global economy, etc.?

Mike,

This is actually the line of thinking that I would like to combat. And you seem to sorely miss the point. All your examples of efforts to increase human understanding and scientific knowledge is exactly what I’m talking about. Your failure to see that is endemic to the presuppositions you harbor about what the Bible is or isn’t, what it should be or shouldn’t be, etc. I’m talking about education; you’re talking about education—- you’ve missed the point.

No I didn’t miss the point.  All study, education, and pursuit is not of equal value.  There isn’t an understanding of the bible that will ever be intrinsicly important or valuable.  We live in a world of limited resources.  One of the fundamental problems we have as a society is the commitment of these limited resources to layering nuance and study on foolishness.  One dollar commited to “studying” the bible is one too many, particularly where any advancement to be unlocked in that field is completely irrelevant to anything but the sentimenal religious notions that some people continue to harbor.  If all of the funds committed to this kind of crap were stuffed neatly into the change cup of a single alcoholic vagabond, it would be impossible for it to do less good than it does in the hands of the thousands of so-called academics pouring over the supposed history of a single fiction.  There’s simply no excuse for wasting resources on this type of pointless crap.

Again Mike you sorely miss the point, and the reason for that is because you have already presupposed, erroneously, what the scientific study of the Bible is. This is revealing: “that field is completely irrelevant to anything but the sentimenal religious notions that some people continue to harbor” This in fact, is the very sentiment that such a study would aim to combat, not support. You seem to align real biblical and scientific study with religion, religious sentiment, etc.

“pouring over the supposed history of a single fiction”—- you apparently know nothing of the field, and that is ok. Scientific study of the biblical does just the opposite. No real biblical historian views this as history. Also, yes I’m biased on this topic, but my bias the bias of a historian—-namely studying history and the hows and whys of historical traditions and authoritative traditions emerge is a largely needed pursuit. Lastly, one of the reasons why this world suffers from limited resources is, I might claim, lack of real biblical knowledge and hypocrisy that claims modern individuals to be participates of ideologies carved some 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. This is nonsense. Your dislike of this proposal clearly reveals more about your own misconceptions about the Bible or study of the Bible, etc. This is what such a study attempts to dispel.

 
 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 16:29
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 02:18 PM

I’ll concede that ignoring religion may not cause it to go away, but giving it some kind of credence, authority and respect by treating it as some legitimate area of study worthy of resources and intellectual discussion in the fine “historical” details certainly isn’t going to do the job either.

I concur, but then again this is not what I’m proposing. I’m proposing an object of study, the Bible, not a field, not religious sentiment, not religion period. Rather the study of a collection of ancient writings that for one reason or another has become [unfortunately I might add] authoritative and improperly meaningful in our culture. And part of this study would be to disclose how and why this came about.

Furthermore, such a project and the conclusions it would draw would be antithetical to your “some kind of credence, authority and respect” to the religious. I understand your reactions, and I understand where you’re arguing from, and I’m telling you your position is founded on the very misperceptions and presuppositions that such a study would attempt, through textual data itself, to expose.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 17:07
 

“No real biblical historian views this as history.”  Doesn’t that pretty much say it all?  Can you retire now? 

No doubt I have reached the conclusion (not presupposed) that any study of the bible is a waste of resources.  So, thank you for crystalizing what I have explicitly written yet again.  What I don’t do is equate “scientific” bible study or history of religion to religious practice or even apologetics.  I say that it’s irrelevant to anything but religious sentiment, because non-religious people (and particularly those who are not christian) do not care or need to be told that biblical history isn’t history and the bible isn’t “true”.  Those types of revelations can only serve the purpose of challenging the beliefs of believers.  Bottom line:  it’s nothing new.  Bread already comes sliced.  Do you honestly think that your “scientific”-historical-textual-round-table-circle-jerk discussion group is going to complete the work the fossil record failed to do?  There are no rabbits in the precambrian, yet there remain a staggering number of people who believe Genesis is literally true and the Earth only 6000 years-old.

The world suffers from limited resources because it is more or less a closed system.  Your focus on the mistaken application of biblical ideology as the source of that limitation demonstrates your misconceptions of reality—and perhaps how far your head is up Yaweh’s ass.  While you’ll get no disagreement from me that manifest destiny may be a similar intellectual abuse as leads to any tragedy of the commons, pretending you’re going to erase thousands of years of institutionalized, hieratic bullshit by popping jesus’ biblical bubble is pure arrogance.  Monotheism followed the development of the city state, it did not cause it.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
23 October 2012 17:27
 

I don’t really see how the Bible can be studied scientifically or even historically either, but this is what Richard Carrier is currently attempting to do with the historicity of Jesus issue. He has a PHD in ancient history and is well versed in scientific methodologies as well, so in his upcoming volume 2 we’ll see if Bayes Theorem can shed any light on this subject.

After reading his volume 1, and seeing his axioms and rules, I don’t really see making much headway, but…..we’ll see.

Using empirical methodologies to try and set probabilities for truth from ancient mythologies, folk tales and some possible facts, seems like a stretch to me, but i’ll wait and judge after the experts confer on this.

 
 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 17:50
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 03:07 PM

“No real biblical historian views this as history.”  Doesn’t that pretty much say it all?  Can you retire now? 

No doubt I have reached the conclusion (not presupposed) that any study of the bible is a waste of resources.  So, thank you for crystalizing what I have explicitly written yet again.  What I don’t do is equate “scientific” bible study or history of religion to religious practice or even apologetics.  I say that it’s irrelevant to anything but religious sentiment, because non-religious people (and particularly those who are not christian) do not care or need to be told that biblical history isn’t history and the bible isn’t “true”.  Those types of revelations can only serve the purpose of challenging the beliefs of believers.  Bottom line:  it’s nothing new.  Bread already comes sliced.  Do you honestly think that your “scientific”-historical-textual-round-table-circle-jerk discussion group is going to complete the work the fossil record failed to do?  There are no rabbits in the precambrian, yet there remain a staggering number of people who believe Genesis is literally true and the Earth only 6000 years-old.

The world suffers from limited resources because it is more or less a closed system.  Your focus on the mistaken application of biblical ideology as the source of that limitation demonstrates your misconceptions of reality—and perhaps how far your head is up Yaweh’s ass.  While you’ll get no disagreement from me that manifest destiny may be a similar intellectual abuse as leads to any tragedy of the commons, pretending you’re going to erase thousands of years of institutionalized, hieratic bullshit by popping jesus’ biblical bubble is pure arrogance.  Monotheism followed the development of the city state, it did not cause it.

So basically you’re not interested in disseminating knowledge, of humanitarian fields of study such as history, literature, and philosophy—correct? If none religious people do not care about what the biblical texts really are, as against what they’re claimed to be by billions of theists, then why the hell are people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris to name a few, talking about the Bible—- and I might add incorrectly! Obviously there is also a sentiment shared by these atheists that theism must/can be battled from their own texts. Unfortunately, both theist and atheists largely misunderstand and misrepresent the text.

A specific example, that to a large extent got me furiously thinking about this topic. Harris, some Jewish rabbis, and Christians were debating the existence of the afterlife. There was no biblical scholar present in this debate and little to no real use of these historical documents. This was a shame because the whole question and futile debate that this was could have been avoided, or answered definitively, by referencing Daniel AND its historical circumstances. This text itself demonstrates that the IDEA of an afterlife emerged in the Jewish tradition in the 2nd century AD!! And why and how it emerged can be answered by studying the historical circumstances that more or less gave birth to this new religious idea. So debating where the soul goes after death, if there is an afterlife is horseshit. The study of the biblical texts themselves bears this out; it informs when this idea was created by man, why it was created, and how come it has perpetuated.—- if this is irrelevant to you, I cannot change that.

Case two—- the piss poor debate Harris had with Craig (a flaming idiot) over morality. Again, careful attention to the study of what, how, and why the biblical texts says what it does can lead to the demonstration that even the moral system(s) in the Bible are mad made!! But Harris doesn’t argue this; of course not; he’s not a biblical scholar. And Craig is a theologian to whom the Bible is a mere vehicle to manipulate to legitimate his own personal theology (i.e., not an objective study of the Bible). Again I don’t see how you can claim this as irrelevant. What seems irrelevant to me are these two debates. They foster nothing as far as intellectual progress; although certainly it is a pleasure to hear Harris speak; he is an extremely bright individual.

Lastly, even implementing an objective study of the Bible that could demonstrate, as in the two cases above, that 1) heaven and the afterlife are religious ideas created by man under duress of specific historical circumstances—- look! right here is where the Bible says this. And 2) morality is a social construct—- look here is how the Bible too claims this! Will this make a difference? I don’t have a crystal ball. Am I trying to erase thousands of years of erroneous thinking —- that’s preposterous. Who the fuck could do that. The direction if forward.

 
 
Mike78
 
Avatar
 
 
Mike78
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  05-06-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 18:34
 

Your whole position, the entire notion to focus on the bible as having anything definitive to say about either “the afterlife” or morality shows exactly why my point is dead on.  The bible is a stumbling block that prevents people from getting very far in a genuine discussion of these types of topics because it tends to monopolize the field with its particular brand of bullshit.  You’re proposing deepening into that vortex. 

A notion of an afterlife absolultely is not an invention of the bible.  That you would even suggest this is completely ridiculous.  There are ritualized burials that predate the bible by scary numbers of thousands of years.  What thoughts and ideas do you imagine coupled those practices if not some kind of afterlife?  Why bury your dead relative with pots, clothes, tools and weapons?  Why ritualize the skeleton of a bear if not under some notion that the performance of such deeds contacts an otherworldly source for the next hunt’s bounty?  Any biblical retread of this existence-long question offers us nothing more than what was told by the earliest peoples.  So yes, I maintain what the bible has to say on the subject of whether there’s an afterlife is pretty much irrelevant.

Of course the moral systems of the bible are man-made, if they can honestly be called “moral” at all.  Who needs to waste time grappling with that notion?  Are we to believe that human beings existed on this planet for millenia completely without any morality in practice?  Are we to believe that every society in which judeo-christian ethics holds no footing are inherently immoral? That’s laugh-out-loud stupid.  Craig’s rhetorical pose on this subject is calculated.  He takes a position that the existence of god provides a basis for objective morality that would not exist otherwise.  If morality is not purely objective, god is irrelevant, and so is Criag’s argument.  Furthermore, Craig cannot bridge the gap between the existence of god as the basis for objective morality and the content of biblical morality, in part, because he cannot establish the biblical god as god.

No need to resort to bibles, crystal balls, or any other crutches.  If the direction is forward, we have to move away from the junk.

 
srd44
 
Avatar
 
 
srd44
Total Posts:  129
Joined  29-04-2012
 
 
 
23 October 2012 19:11
 
Mike78 - 23 October 2012 04:34 PM

Your whole position, the entire notion to focus on the bible as having anything definitive to say about either “the afterlife” or morality shows exactly why my point is dead on.  The bible is a stumbling block that prevents people from getting very far in a genuine discussion of these types of topics because it tends to monopolize the field with its particular brand of bullshit.  You’re proposing deepening into that vortex.

Mike, You’re way off kilter here. I don’t care if your disagree with my position or not; what I find shocking is your lack of understanding, and now continued misrepresentation of what’s going on. Your comment above “The bible is…” clearly presents your own preconceived notions of what the Bible is. Second you totally, and regrettably,  fail to understand scientific method. I think that the biggest miscommunication here, and presupposition on your part, is between 3,000-2,000 year old historical documents that represent the beliefs, worldviews, and ideologies of cultures and peoples long gone (my field of study) and the Bible as concocted by modernity, and to which apparently you subscribe.

A notion of an afterlife absolultely is not an invention of the bible.  That you would even suggest this is completely ridiculous.  There are ritualized burials that predate the bible by scary numbers of thousands of years.  What thoughts and ideas do you imagine coupled those practices if not some kind of afterlife?  Why bury your dead relative with pots, clothes, tools and weapons?  Why ritualize the skeleton of a bear if not under some notion that the performance of such deeds contacts an otherworldly source for the next hunt’s bounty?  Any biblical retread of this existence-long question offers us nothing more than what was told by the earliest peoples.  So yes, I maintain what the bible has to say on the subject of whether there’s an afterlife is pretty much irrelevant.

Who says the notion of the afterlife is the invention of the Bible? Again, you’re not even able to listen to what I’m saying because of your preconceived notions. I’m saying studying literature in its historical context enables us to see clearly how, when, and why MAN invented, created new religious ideas, one of which is the afterlife. If you’re, we’re, not talking about this in its historical context, with understanding, then we’re just spouting drivel, as the debate was that I referenced above.

Second, by your own admission, all your questions above are irrelevant! How absurd. How can someone sincerely be against the pursuit of knowledge, historical context, and proper understanding of the evolution of human ideas, authoritative traditions, etc. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not against these things, but like many fundamentalist, you’re just being hypocritical. Or, your own ignorance of the field of study has caused you to have violent prejudicial and preconditioned reactions to said field.

Really, I’m shocked.

Of course the moral systems of the bible are man-made, if they can honestly be called “moral” at all.  Who needs to waste time grappling with that notion?  Are we to believe that human beings existed on this planet for millenia completely without any morality in practice?  Are we to believe that every society in which judeo-christian ethics holds no footing are inherently immoral? That’s laugh-out-loud stupid.  Craig’s rhetorical pose on this subject is calculated.  He takes a position that the existence of god provides a basis for objective morality that would not exist otherwise.  If morality is not purely objective, god is irrelevant, and so is Criag’s argument.  Furthermore, Craig cannot bridge the gap between the existence of god as the basis for objective morality and the content of biblical morality, in part, because he cannot establish the biblical god as god.

Craig’s drivel is just that, theologizing bs—- glad we can come to an agreement on that. I’m saying that the whole position that the Bible supports an objective divinely-originating morality is based on layers and layers of biblical interpretive traditions that have nothing to do with, and are antithetical to, what the 7th c. Deuteronomist wrote, to whom he wrote, and why, to the 6th c. BC Aaronid priest, who contrary to the claims of the Deuteronomist a century earlier, has his god, Yahweh, proclaim a completely different ethical law code. What the Bible says, is not some objective thing, as you seem to suggest above, but the words, ideas, and ideologies of real peoples and culture’s writing to address historical circumstances.

No need to resort to bibles, crystal balls, or any other crutches.  If the direction is forward, we have to move away from the junk.

Yep, therefor based on this line of thinking, no reason to resort to the Constitution, no need to resort to judicial precedent, no reason to invoke history, the ideas and shape of ideas that mankind has crafted, no need to wallow in any type of learning of the past, burn the great books, the perennial questions they grapple with, who cares. You sound like a wall-street guy. Just living for now, no concern about education, or human development.

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
23 October 2012 19:26
 
GAD - 23 October 2012 01:54 PM

Where srd44 says  

I can demonstrate with textual data—no theologizing—that the Bible itself leads us to conclude that it is not the word of a god, God, or Yahweh.

So, let him publish an article in a journal or write a book. I read it once with scholarly footnotes, I found the whole book leads to the conclusion it’s not the word of God. And the best corraborating evidence for that is contained everywhere but the Bible, so I’m happy to keep it closed and gathering dust on the shelf. [Is that where I left it?]

 
 
 1 2 >