Have you read the whole Bible enough to make claims about it?

[Shermana]

I often notice many "Christians" say things like "Jesus only taught one thing" or "Jesus only taught two things", when I see that I often have to wonder if they missed all the hundreds of specific teachings that Jesus taught. I also notice some gross distortions of what the OT says from cherry picked passages or single verses like Isaiah 64:4 that have nothing to do with the actual context of the passage in question in an attempt to bolster their doctrinal claims. Also it seems they are virtually unaware of any manuscript or scholarly issues, and often brush them aside as if they don't matter rather than research them. Nonetheless, I do see a few who have read it sufficiently and are honestly willing to incorporate the whole of the text and the scholarship into their views.

My question is this:

Do "Christians" generally have a solid understanding of the entire text to be able to make bold assertions about it in debate or are they relying mostly on a sheet of cherry picked verses they get from websites or their pastors that are used only to bolster reductionist doctrines?

Have you read the entire Bible? Do you think you personally know enough about what it says to be able to make claims about it? If your knowledge of the Bible comes from cherry picked verses, have you considered reading the entirety of the text, and do you think such would be a valid investment of your time? Do you think a "Christian" should read the Gospels before discussing them, let alone the rest of the Bible? Do you think Christians should NOT attempt to discuss doctrine and Theology if they don't have a sufficient grasp of what the text even says? Or do you think knowledge of a few key verses is sufficient?

 

[Green Kepi]

I will not attempt speaking as a 'spokes-person' for all those claiming to be Christians; however, to attempt answers to your questions...no. yes. yes. I try. yes. yes. no....

Now...I'd love to defend my beliefs to you. Ready?

 

[ChristineES]

I've read every book in the Bible, most more than once (The ones I only read once are Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers). Even so, I am not a spokesman for anything written in the scriptures and I will not pretend to be. I think we can discuss what a scripture may mean and even discuss doctrine in order to learn what we can from it by other's point of view. But I also think we should continue to study the scriptures.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Do "Christians" generally have a solid understanding of the entire text to be able to make bold assertions about it in debate or are they relying mostly on a sheet of cherry picked verses they get from websites or their pastors that are used only to bolster reductionist doctrines?

After years of debating religion online with Christians, what I have learned that it is mainly the fundamentalist who picks and chooses what to believe in the bible.

Have you read the entire Bible? Do you think you personally know enough about what it says to be able to make claims about it?

I have not read the entire Bible. What I have read is: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation.

I believe I know enough about what I have read in order to debate what is important to me as a non-christian.

 

[greentwiga]

I am a fundamentalist Christian. I have read the whole Bible and have delved into many parts that seem to cause the greatest debate. I have dug into the Book of Genesis and the whole Pentateuch, even looking at the Hebrew. I have also researched areas of the New Testament in controversial areas, frequently looking at the Greek. I don't always agree with standard teaching, but am accepted to teach in Baptist and other churches. Cherry picking verses bugs me. Blind repetition of what other people have learned by studying without studying yourself is even worse.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have probably read the bible a few times... But I can't be certain, as I have never read it cover to cover. I have mostly read the KJV. I have read "bits" of other versions. I have never read the Orthodox or Coptic or Ethiopian Bibles. So there are books I have never read or even seen. Some biblical works are no longer available as they are lost to history and censorship.

So do I know and understand the entire Bible.. clearly not...

I have had the thought recently that mankind is too full of his own importance, if he thinks he is someway special in the sight of God. All the other creatures and beings in the universe that have come, gone and are yet to come, are just as important to God... may be more so ...It is not for us to know. And certainly not for us to decide.

We certainly have a role to play, and Jesus taught us how we should act and how we should live our lives and worship God. He even hinted he had other kingdoms and other people.

The few words that make up our Bible, In the vastness of other religious writings and beliefs, are certainly not "all the knowledge" about God and the universe.Though they make up an important resource for our spiritual learning. It includes ancient myths and beliefs, that by now we should have outgrown, or at least understand to be what they are. As well as examples that are relevant to our lives to day. Some other Religions seem to understand this way of thinking better than Christianity, while others have a far longer way to go.

What we read in the Bible needs interpretation and application to the world we find ourselves in. Its knowledge and wisdom is only timeless because it can be interpreted in the light of new knowledge and experience.

Am I, or any one, qualified to do this? Probably not... But we are required to make the attempt.

(I have read much of the Jehovah Witnesses version of the Bible, and the Book Of Mormon, both are instructive but neither convince me.)

 

[SaintAugustine]

Without hesistation..interperation is the biggest problem. Thus the birth of numerious denominations.

 

[sojourner]

I've read the Bible through. I've accumulated many undergraduate and graduate hours of both survey and scholarly exegetical study of both OT and NT. I'm by no means an "expert." But I think I know enough to make some solid claims, and astute enough to differentiate between what is a "fact" and what is conjecture. It depends on what kinds of claims one is making. Textual claims? Interpretational claims? Theological claims? People can believe whatever they want, since the texts are multivalent. The hard part is being able to defend those beliefs adequately. Cherry-picking isn't an adequate defense.

 

[Darkness]

I think Christians spend too much time reading the biblical literature and not enough time reading about the biblical literature. Human beings tend to fall in the trap of presentism, and believe the way we think today is the way all people have thought. Post-structuralist philosophy teaches us multiple and fluid readings to a text, against authoritarianism. For instance: modern Roman Catholicism teaches a satisfaction theory of the atonement, tied up in the Latin doctrine of penance with Jesus' death creating an honor/righteousness surplus that believers can draw upon, and Protestantism generally teaches penal substitution in which Jesus suffered the punishments due to humanity for our sins. However, the vast majority of Christians in the Patristic period believed in ransom theory/Christus Victor, in which the incarnation is seen as a part of God's war against the cosmic forces of evil, and humanity's liberation from the kingdom of darkness thereof. So, contemporary Christians naturally read atonement passages in light of the development of substitutionary thinking. The Isaiah 53:5, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed", would have been read differently in the first centuries anno domini; something along the lines of, the kingdom of darkness unleashed all their wickedness against Jesus, but he rose from the dead in the end and triumphed over Satan. The original focus of soteriology was saving us from Satan, not God.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think Christians spend too much time reading the biblical literature and not enough time reading about the biblical literature. Human beings tend to fall in the trap of presentism, and believe the way we think today is the way all people have thought. Post-structuralist philosophy teaches us multiple and fluid readings to a text, against authoritarianism. For instance: modern Roman Catholicism teaches a satisfaction theory of the atonement, tied up in the Latin doctrine of penance with Jesus' death creating an honor/righteousness surplus that believers can draw upon, and Protestantism generally teaches penal substitution in which Jesus suffered the punishments due to humanity for our sins. However, the vast majority of Christians in the Patristic period believed in ransom theory/Christus Victor, in which the incarnation is seen as a part of God's war against the cosmic forces of evil, and humanity's liberation from the kingdom of darkness thereof. So, contemporary Christians naturally read atonement passages in light of the development of substitutionary thinking. The Isaiah 53:5, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed", would have been read differently in the first centuries anno domini; something along the lines of, the kingdom of darkness unleashed all their wickedness against Jesus, but he rose from the dead in the end and triumphed over Satan. The original focus of soteriology was saving us from Satan, not God.

wow...gonna copy and paste this...for my own file..brilliant..you are so right..if a modern christian suddenly was transported to a group of early christians..the two would find the other's theology and actions completly confusing...

 

[Darkness]

wow...gonna copy and paste this...for my own file..brilliant..you are so right..if a modern christian suddenly was transported to a group of early christians..the two would find the other's theology and actions completly confusing...

It is not that I believe religions should remain static, forever. While I adhere to the Christus Victor soteriology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and not the Satisfaction Theory of my Roman Catholic Church, I did not intend anything I wrote to be a normative judgment. It is merely that we should acknowledge the historical process of our beliefs. The Protestant understanding of Communion/Eucharist breaks with the Early Christians belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is not that I am saying it is wrong to reject transsubstantiation, but rather a call to acknowledge that it has preeminence historically. Early Christians understood Jesus Eucharistic words to be more literal than modern Protestants.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe a devout Christian should have much to say on the scriptures. If they read a few chapters a day and thus read the Holy Bible each year, after just five years they should have plenty of commentary for anyone IMHO.

 

[kylixguru]

Regardless of how much or how little someone knows about the Bible, what matters most to me is how respectful they are in the dialog. I have found a correlation between people who think they have much knowledge being the most resistant to considering the possibility of new ideas. Our knowledge can be a very good thing, but if we grow prideful then we blind ourselves to further light and knowledge.

 

[dan b]

Believe it or not you can use a key and find the most amazing yet fundamental principles described in the Bible. Now that we have passed the year 2000AD the seal which kept the knowledge hidden has been opened. Check it out yourself, look anew at the scripture on your own intent. I'm convinced that a lot of people are about to come to a new awakening and see what they never say before. Although it was always there in front of them. Now the "mystery of God is finished!"

 

[Freedomelf]

I think Christians spend too much time reading the biblical literature and not enough time reading about the biblical literature. Human beings tend to fall in the trap of presentism, and believe the way we think today is the way all people have thought.

I'm not sure I understood you, or perhaps you misspoke, because you later seem to agree that people are too influenced by literature about the bible, rather than the bible itself. If it's me who didn't understand, then I accept that.

It is my view that most Christians have read too much about the Bible literature and not enough of the Bible itself to make informed decisions about their own faith. I know lots of Christians who have read Christian magazines, literature about their particular church and books about how to be better Christians, but they have no idea what is in their actual Bible, the thing that all other literature revolves around. This seems incongruous to me, yet it is prevalent everywhere.

 

[Freedomelf]

Regardless of how much or how little someone knows about the Bible, what matters most to me is how respectful they are in the dialog. I have found a correlation between people who think they have much knowledge being the most resistant to considering the possibility of new ideas. Our knowledge can be a very good thing, but if we grow prideful then we blind ourselves to further light and knowledge.

Absolutely. People of all faiths epitomize their own faith's highest values only when they are open and respectful of other ideas. Good point.

 

[heksesang]

I probably haven't read the whole Bible. I don't know every verse. In fact, I only read properly the stuff that matters to me. While I do rely on "cherry-picked" verses, I do often read the whole text to make my arguments stronger if I were to discuss it or advocate my view in any way. And in some cases I try to not just look at the Bible, but other texts outside the Bible that might be relevant.

 

[Desert Snake]

I often notice many "Christians" say things like "Jesus only taught one thing" or "Jesus only taught two things", when I see that I often have to wonder if they missed all the hundreds of specific teachings that Jesus taught. I also notice some gross distortions of what the OT says from cherry picked passages or single verses like Isaiah 64:4 that have nothing to do with the actual context of the passage in question in an attempt to bolster their doctrinal claims. Also it seems they are virtually unaware of any manuscript or scholarly issues, and often brush them aside as if they don't matter rather than research them. Nonetheless, I do see a few who have read it sufficiently and are honestly willing to incorporate the whole of the text and the scholarship into their views.

My question is this:

Do "Christians" generally have a solid understanding of the entire text to be able to make bold assertions about it in debate or are they relying mostly on a sheet of cherry picked verses they get from websites or their pastors that are used only to bolster reductionist doctrines?

Have you read the entire Bible? Do you think you personally know enough about what it says to be able to make claims about it? If your knowledge of the Bible comes from cherry picked verses, have you considered reading the entirety of the text, and do you think such would be a valid investment of your time? Do you think a "Christian" should read the Gospels before discussing them, let alone the rest of the Bible? Do you think Christians should NOT attempt to discuss doctrine and Theology if they don't have a sufficient grasp of what the text even says? Or do you think knowledge of a few key verses is sufficient?

Yadda yadda yadda Just because someone has read the entire Bible doesn't mean that they are interpreting the verses correctly.
Cherrypicked verses, however, yes, that seems to be as problematic as taking verses out of context, which I find the most annoying.

 

[ChristineES]

Yadda yadda yadda Just because someone has read the entire Bible doesn't mean that they are interpreting the verses correctly.
Cherrypicked verses, however, yes, that seems to be as problematic as taking verses out of context, which I find the most annoying.

The thing about interpretation is that we don't know who has the correct interpretation and who doesn't. Different interpretation is the main reason there are thousands of Christian denominations- each group believes they are the only ones who interpreted correctly.

As for cherry picking- don't we all do that to a certain degree? I am not as bothered by out of context as I am about stringing together two or more unrelated verses to change the meanings to fit to each agenda.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not as bothered by out of context as I am about stringing together two or more unrelated verses to change the meanings to fit to each agenda.

That's pretty much the same as taking verses out of context. Usually taking verses out of context and putting them together to make a different meaning happen in the same argument.