Should a short scholarship be required before reading the bible

[outhouse]

With so many different views on the book and the 1000 different messages that can be translated from the same scripture, should there be a short scholarship required that will help center beliefs?

Yes a unbiased scholarship with what is really known at the time the preface.

Since the bible was edited and changed over a thousand years it only seems fair that the preface be updated as new material and knowledge surfaces.


Maybe with a title of "common knowledge"


what would theist be afraid of?

could knowledge hurt their faith?


dont you think it would be a good idea getting more people centered in belief instead of having so many different interpretations?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

What do you mean by scholarship? My understanding of the term is a financial payment used to encourage scholars or else the act of studying; however you seem to be indicating some sort of short course or perhaps some sort of bible preface or introduction... it is unclear what you mean.


And as for 'centering' peoples' beliefs well that might be your idea of a 'good idea' personally I see that as a form of attempting to either convert or marginalise anyone who has a different opinion than you. Religious diversity may be uncomfortable for those in the center, however it is only through the actions of their more outspoken members that the conservative mainstream might experience any sort of change - and change is necessary as it is an element of all systems.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

With so many different views on the book and the 1000 different messages that can be translated from the same scripture, should there be a short scholarship required that will help center beliefs?

Required by whom?

Since the bible was edited and changed over a thousand years it only seems fair that the preface be updated as new material and knowledge surfaces.

A lot of bibles have updated commentary, appendices, prefaces, and so forth.

dont you think it would be a good idea getting more people centered in belief instead of having so many different interpretations?

I'm not sure what you mean by "centered in belief." However, I don't see how an inclusion of a paper or several papers by scholars would change things. There are lots of scholars who study the bible for a living, and they disagree on how it ought to be interpreted. I'm all for people educating themselves about any topics they find important, but even if you require every christian to read Hebrew and Greek and obtain a degree or two in biblical studies or something similar, there will still be disagreements over interpretation.

 

[outhouse]

Required by whom?

by anyone teaching or preaching gospel.

Sold as a small book to read before hand. maybe I just figured out my new best seller LOL

I'm not sure what you mean by "centered in belief." However, I don't see how an inclusion of a paper or several papers by scholars would change things. There are lots of scholars who study the bible for a living, and they disagree on how it ought to be interpreted. I'm all for people educating themselves about any topics they find important, but even if you require every christian to read Hebrew and Greek and obtain a degree or two in biblical studies or something similar, there will still be disagreements over interpretation.

Agreed.

And how wiki states both sides of the fence, as it arises. so would my Preface.

With that said there are areas not up for debate


If it was up to me every other sentance would state "now write on a chalk board a thousand times"

"we do not install a god or deity in the gaps of our knowledge" and that just to break all habits.

 

[outhouse]

What do you mean by scholarship? My understanding of the term is a financial payment used to encourage scholars or else the act of studying; however you seem to be indicating some sort of short course or perhaps some sort of bible preface or introduction... it is unclear what you mean.


And as for 'centering' peoples' beliefs well that might be your idea of a 'good idea' personally I see that as a form of attempting to either convert or marginalise anyone who has a different opinion than you. Religious diversity may be uncomfortable for those in the center, however it is only through the actions of their more outspoken members that the conservative mainstream might experience any sort of change - and change is necessary as it is an element of all systems.

what do I mean, the study of scripture through critical anlysis



except opinions matter not.

this is about truth and knowledge applied to scripture

 

[outhouse]

They thought jesus was crazy when he wanted to change the status quo as well. LOL

those are shoes im not wearing.


but the bible evolved for over a thousand years


its gone stale for almost two thousand, it needs revised.

 

[Me Myself]

before reading that sounds like a horrible idea. Before teaching about it in churches sounds like a good measure churches should take before alowing people to teach using the bible.

 

[Daviso452]

True dat brotha.

 

[Just Another]

With so many different views on the book and the 1000 different messages that can be translated from the same scripture, should there be a short scholarship required that will help center beliefs?

Yes a unbiased scholarship with what is really known at the time the preface.

Since the bible was edited and changed over a thousand years it only seems fair that the preface be updated as new material and knowledge surfaces.


Maybe with a title of "common knowledge"


what would theist be afraid of?

could knowledge hurt their faith?


dont you think it would be a good idea getting more people centered in belief instead of having so many different interpretations?

Should we start putting signs up at Barnes & Noble that Shakespeare or Dawkins are off limits unless you have a Masters?

Perspective will still be there regardless of the education level.

 

[outhouse]

Should we start putting signs up at Barnes & Noble that Shakespeare or Dawkins are off limits unless you have a Masters?

People dont live their lives around Shakespeare or Dawkins, thus your statement is invalid.

Perspective will still be there regardless of the education level.

but it could be changed



would you agree the bible is hard top understand and contradictory in places??

would you agree most theist havent even read the book cover to cover??

 

[outhouse]

before reading that sounds like a horrible idea. Before teaching about it in churches sounds like a good measure churches should take before alowing people to teach using the bible.

since most people havnt read it at all, you may have a point. I just dont like it, I think they should be explained on what the majoprity of historians and scholars agree as allegory. this also preserves the origial message.

the rest I agree

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

People dont live their lives around Shakespeare or Dawkins, thus your statement is invalid.

Granted, some works are more influential than others. But it seems to me that you are approaching the bible with a particular view in mind and thinking that, if the proper preface or whatever were included, then more people would cohere to a line of thought similar to your own. However, I don't think that including a scholarly preface would do that. And reading Dawkins or Ann Coulter or any number of authors promoting a particular ideology can be just as "harmful" (depending on one's view of right and wrong) as the bible.

but it could be changed



would you agree the bible is hard top understamnd and contradictory??

would you agree most theist havent even read the book cover to cover??

Theists is a pretty broad category, so whether or not they have read the bible isn't always at issue. For example, if memory serves catholics are the most numerous christian group. However, they hold that the church, not the bible, is the ultimate authority on earth. And while there has been a resurgence among catholics of biblical studies, ultimately catholics are supposed to rely on the church to inform them. Other theists don't "believe" in the bible at all.

As for being hard to understand, philosophy, theology, and the nature of the universe are all hard to understand. In some cases, perhaps impossible. I don't see how you can get around this by including a preface in certain books.

 

[Just Another]

People dont live their lives around Shakespeare or Dawkins, thus your statement is invalid.

Extremely niave statement.

would you agree the bible is hard top understand and contradictory in places??

would you agree most theist havent even read the book cover to cover??

Yes & yes.

And I would also bet that if a census could be taken across the country of graduating 4yr students that actually read all of their textbooks cover to cover the outcome would be worse than the christians thatve read the bible front to back.

Its all relative.

Youre saying we should put a requirement on an antique theological book that hasnt been imposed on any other book to date I can think of?

All I can say is

 

[outhouse]

then more people would cohere to a line of thought similar to your own.

false

It doesnt have to be my view, I dont have to be the author, nor do I claim to have the knowledge to write it.

Id trust A&E

I don't think that including a scholarly preface would do that.

You have a good point and may be right, takes a while for truths to set in.

particular ideology

Well that wouldnt be the purpose at all. The majority would be teaching to put the book in the proper context.


for instance, much of the first five books are allegorical fables and legends written to give the ancient hebrews identity. They were never literal pieces. the modern followers of Judaism will tell you this and its known byhistorians and scholars, yet many christians still butcher it.

Theists is a pretty broad category, so whether or not they have read the bible isn't always at issue. For example, if memory serves catholics are the most numerous christian group. However, they hold that the church, not the bible, is the ultimate authority on earth. And while there has been a resurgence among catholics of biblical studies, ultimately catholics are supposed to rely on the church to inform them. Other theists don't "believe" in the bible at all.

and exactly why the church should be teaching the proper methods. The Vatican has made movements, but catholics still dont even listen then.

As for being hard to understand, philosophy, theology, and the nature of the universe are all hard to understand. In some cases, perhaps impossible.

well there are certainties in science, history and life in general. We dont need to make it to long and teach them everything. just clean it up a little with common scholarly knowledge

 

[outhouse]

Extremely niave statement.

how so?

people are not indoctrinated at birth like christianity with either Dawkins or Darwin.

\Ddawkins is correct in what he says in biology and, Darwin set the foundation that explains all life on this planet. There are no real mistakes in their work.

that doesnt apply to how the bible is interpreted.

Youre saying we should put a requirement on an antique theological book that hasnt been imposed on any other book to date I can think of?

the bible effects more lives then any other book on this planet, despite its age.


I think its a good idea for the betterment of humanity. Maybe you dont care about humanity as a whole and are happy watching people wallow in the mire ignorance due to theism. Im not.

 

[Erebus]

Don't quote me on this because I'm not entirely sure on it, but as far as I know in England most priests require a degree level in theology/scripture before being ordained.
I actually agree with you that to teach anything you need to have a competent and as objective as possible grasp on what you're teaching. The problem in terms of law here is that while a formal church might be able to demand its priests are educated, there's not much to stop your local fundy starting his own prayer group any more than you can stop somebody starting a book club.

I've often said that rather than take religious scriptures as absolute truth or simply as utter garbage, people should take more time to explore the insight they provide into ancient cultures before harping on about why they're the divine word of God/evil, primitive trash.
I'll also readily admit that I'm no expert on scripture myself having only covered a couple of areas (Underworld mythology mostly) but then I tend not to discuss it much anyway

 

[Plato]

With so many different views on the book and the 1000 different messages that can be translated from the same scripture, should there be a short scholarship required that will help center beliefs?

Yes a unbiased scholarship with what is really known at the time the preface.

Since the bible was edited and changed over a thousand years it only seems fair that the preface be updated as new material and knowledge surfaces.


Maybe with a title of "common knowledge"


what would theist be afraid of?

could knowledge hurt their faith?


dont you think it would be a good idea getting more people centered in belief instead of having so many different interpretations?

Yes....The Bible is in fact an ancient artifact written 550BC-200AD in ancient times very different than our own, translated into all languages that might alter meanings. Each Bible should have a 'preface' page informing people of this before they read it.
And the preface should be the same for all Christian denominations (they should at least be able to agree on that much)...telling readers when it was written, by whom, for what purposes, how it was assembled, and that translations into different languages might innocently change some meanings. I don't see why people should not be made aware of these facts before they read as a preface page in each Bible or why anyone would object.
As far as teaching....sure....how can you teach something that your not educated in or knowledgeable about yourself???
I mean, I can read a book on medical surgery, but I don't think anyone wants me to then be teaching it!
In terms of the Bible, no one says the education/ or study has to be at a formal school or cost money....just that it has to be 'real'.
I think just by common sense the listerners of a 'preacher' should ask/ inquire what qualifies him/ her to be their Bible teacher. No one else has to be involved, and if the preacher can't come up with any qualifications of study, knowledge, education in it...besides 'I read it'...then why would anyone listen to him (we all can read)?
That's what I think 'should' be.