Bible, the foundational book of books?

[Colt]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Bible is a compiled and redacted book containing ancient mythology among the Greek and Roman pantheon.

I see it as being nothing more, nothing less.

Anyways the Bible is not the leader here. Not by a long shot. This is...

BBC NEWS | Europe | Unique book goes on display

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm guessing it's not the foundational book of the Vedas.

 

[Colt]

The Bible is a compiled and redacted book containing ancient mythology among the Greek and Roman pantheon.

I see it as being nothing more, nothing less.

Anyways the Bible is not the leader here. Not by a long shot. This is...

BBC NEWS | Europe | Unique book goes on display

If this book was just discovered then it wasn’t foundational. You’ve completely missed the point!

 

[Debater Slayer]

A lot of Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, and Roman literature in fields ranging from religion and philosophy to logic and mathematics far predates the Bible and has substantial value. The Bible isn't the foundation for said literature, that's for sure.

Jordan Peterson is no religious or historical expert, and he's no political commentator either. When he oversteps his expertise and makes such unfounded statements about those fields, sometimes he sounds like an ideologue who prioritizes ideology over facts and logic--much like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. Different sides, same coin.

 

[Altfish]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan show - The very Joe Rogan that Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have left Spotify over.

Think I'll go and watch some paint dry instead

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm guessing it's not the foundational book of the Vedas.

He does say, "As far as our Western culture is concerned".

I did think we'd past the era of perceived Western cultural exceptionalism, but not everyone in the West has caught up yet, clearly.

 

[Colt]

Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan show - The very Joe Rogan that Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have left Spotify over.

Think I'll go and watch some paint dry instead

Contempt prior to investigation guarantees a life of perpetual ignorance.

 

[Father Heathen]

Contempt prior to investigation guarantees a life of perpetual ignorance.

Now that you've preached it, practice it.

 

[Colt]

Now that you've preached it, practice it.

I already have, I watched the video and posted the thread for mature members who might like to discuss it.

 

[Altfish]

Contempt prior to investigation guarantees a life of perpetual ignorance.

Do you not think that I've already watched sufficient JP videos to form my own opinion and don't need anymore to confirm his absurdity.

 

[Kenny]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

You bring up an interesting point, IMV. Even before the books were written and accumulated, there was oral memorization and transmission. Even there it is my belief that it was the foundation of other faiths and thus all have a story about a flood.

 

[metis]

Even before the books were written and accumulated, there was oral memorization and transmission. Even there it is my belief that it was the foundation of other faiths and thus all have a story about a flood.

Not all, but about 2/3, according to anthropologist Joseph Cambell. And guess what sometimes happens in countries that do?

As you know, I tend to believe that the main purpose of the Flood narrative was likely to counter the earlier polytheistic Babylonian narrative, thus not likely an attempt to teach history per se. Such narratives are written as facts, and that was pretty much commonplace back then as objective history is a much more recent phenomenon.

BTW, I'll be outta here shortly as our son is bringing samosas over, which I doubt you're familiar with since people where you live are no where as cultured as we are here.

Have a Most Blessed Lord's Day, my friend.

 

[Kenny]

Not all, but about 2/3, according to anthropologist Joseph Cambell. And guess what sometimes happens in countries that do?

As you know, I tend to believe that the main purpose of the Flood narrative was likely to counter the earlier polytheistic Babylonian narrative, thus not likely an attempt to teach history per se. Such narratives are written as facts, and that was pretty much commonplace back then as objective history is a much more recent phenomenon.

BTW, I'll be outta here shortly as our son is bringing samosas over, which I doubt you're familiar with since people where you live are no where as cultured as we are here.

Have a Most Blessed Lord's Day, my friend.

Yes... there are those who don't mention it. They lost it in the oral delivery

But to counter Babylonian narrative? Genesis was... WAAAAY before a Babylonian narrative if I am not mistaken... but you have lived way before me and may remember.

And Sam who? Sam O say do I see? What culture doe he come from

Thanks for the blessing my friend.

 

[Colt]

You bring up an interesting point, IMV. Even before the books were written and accumulated, there was oral memorization and transmission. Even there it is my belief that it was the foundation of other faiths and thus all have a story about a flood.

Yes, and those ancient oral traditions from Mesopotamia that the Israelites drew upon were also the basis for other branches of religions such as the Greek pantheon and Homers Odessey. The Gods coming to earth as giant men.

It is believed that the evolution of Greek mythology was rooted in real events or interpretation of those events among the Greeks. There are "similarities" within the religions and cultures all around the Israelites.

Genesis 6:1-4

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

[sojourner]

You bring up an interesting point, IMV. Even before the books were written and accumulated, there was oral memorization and transmission. Even there it is my belief that it was the foundation of other faiths and thus all have a story about a flood.

Except that stories of a flood predate those of the Hebrews.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Jorden Peterson presents an interesting idea about how the Bible (a sort of library on its own) was the first “book” which is really a foundation to other books.

I think he’s correct in his observation but I see the positive aspects of the Bible’s influence as well as the negative.

Thoughts?

He says that the Bible is a bedrock of agreement, and that in many ways, the Bible was the first book. Then he points out that it was the first time reading material was organized in book form. Then he goes on to talk about the meaning of words and how they depend on the meaning of surrounding words (context), His mention of Shakespeare and Milton as writers and refers to their contribution to language in his definition of fundamental based on the idea that those texts influenced many subsequent works.

I'm not sure what his point was. What is the Bible foundational to? Was he talking about the Bible being fundamental to bookmaking, since he emphasizes that it was the first formal book you could buy and hold. That's really only relevant to the history of books.

Or does he mean that the Bible is foundational because of it's it's influence on language?

My first impression when I read the title of the thread was that it was going to argue that the Bible was fundamental to human thought or modern thought or the Western tradition (I'm using fundamental and foundational as synonyms here), but that claim was not made. You seem to be discussing that - influence on thinking beyond semantics and linguistic style - when you talk about the positive and negative influences the Bible has had. I assume that you mean something different than bookbinding or the evolution of language. So, I'll broach that:

If so, I'd add that the Bible has had a major influence historically and culturally, but is not an important source of ideas for those living outside of the religions which consider it a holy book. I'm a secular humanist, and little or none of my worldview resembles that suggested by the Bible. My metaphysics is naturalistic, not theistic. There are no gods, sin, salvation, answered prayers, miracles, or afterlife in my metaphysics.

My epistemology is empirical and founded in skepticism, whereas biblical thinking includes seeing faith as a virtue and the wisdom of the world foolishness. My ethical theory is rational, not received, and doesn't overlap with biblical ethics once we get past the basics regarding stealing or lying. By the time you get to matters like gender equality, human rights, environmental concerns, democracy, and even slavery, the Bible's take is inadequate and contains many moral precepts I have rejected, such as unbelief and homosexuality being abominations, sex outside of marriage immoral, observe the Sabbath, abortion immoral, and more.

Foundational thought for my worldview comes from the ancient Greeks, who introduced skepticism and rational inquiry, and a little empiricism. Also, the rational ethics of thinkers like Buddha, who applied reason to the Golden Rule to generate specific ethical principles about right thinking and right living. The concept of the purpose of life and our responsibilities to ourselves and one another is very different from the Christian one. The idea of living as an autonomous, self-actualized citizen is alien to Christian thought, where submission and piety are chief virtues, as is the idea of man being the source of knowledge and possessing the capability of shaping his world for the better, which is antithetical to the idea of man as totally dependent on God, the only source of knowledge and the only hope of man.

There is another RF member who likes to claim that secular humanism is a spin-off from Christianity simply because it rose to prominence in the mostly Christian West, and that humanists owe a debt to Christian thought. He's implying that Christianity is foundational to humanism, the way that Happy Days is foundational to Laverne and Shirley. But as we can see from the parallel descriptions of the two, secular humanism is a repudiation of the Christian worldview, rejecting essentially all of it, and playing no significant constructive or foundational role in its development.

 

[Kenny]

Except that stories of a flood predate those of the Hebrews.

Not orally. IMV.

 

[sojourner]

Genesis was... WAAAAY before a Babylonian narrative if I am not mistaken.

You’re mistaken.

 

[Kenny]

You’re mistaken.

LOL... no, I think you are mistaken. (Sometimes people remind me of when we were children)