The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin

[shawn001]

The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

Thoughts on this?

 

[nazz]

pretty right on. Interestingly enough I heard a Muslim guy saying the average member of ISIS can't quote the Qur'an either.

 

[savagewind]

I shall read it later maybe but so far I think I agree with it (as I read to paragraph 4).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, there goes my idea that I just simply read a different Bible than what those dumbass morons have read.

 

[Skwim]

Kind of surprised a main stream news magazine like Newsweek would carry such an anti-Christianity article.

 

[Thana]

Biblical illiteracy, I like that.

A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. “Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States. The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found in 2012 that evangelicals accepted the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisees—religious leaders depicted throughout the New Testament as opposing Christ and his message—more than they accepted the teachings of Jesus.

It's good to know that Evangelicals are just as ridiculous and ignorant as I thought them to be.

 

[shawn001]

Kind of surprised a main stream news magazine like Newsweek would carry such an anti-Christianity article.

Its not so much anti-Christianity really.

 

[shawn001]

Hey for some it might save them from blasphemy.

 

[Skwim]

Its not so much anti-Christianity really.

Sure it is. It neither backs Christianity (is pro) or is neutral toward it. It purposely attacks many of the Biblical aspects deemed critical to Christian belief. Deliberately exposing them, it puts Christianity on extremely shaky ground; leaving the reader wonder if there's anything in the Bible that can be relied on.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think many Evangelicals are going to read the article and I suspect even fewer will take it to heart.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think many Evangelicals are going to read the article and I suspect even fewer will take it to heart.

Gotta agree. They're too heavily invested in Biblical inerrancy.
Kind of a

 

[Jumi]

pretty right on. Interestingly enough I heard a Muslim guy saying the average member of ISIS can't quote the Qur'an either.

I wouldn't be surprised. They are more into politics and obligatory prayer. They are more interested in violence and forced conversion than reading material.

 

[shawn001]

Sure it is. It neither backs Christianity (is pro) or is neutral toward it. It purposely attacks many of the Biblical aspects deemed critical to Christian belief. Deliberately exposing them, it puts Christianity on extremely shaky ground; leaving the reader wonder if there's anything in the Bible that can be relied on.

Well yeah I agree, but trying to do a service for them at the same time. I have seen so many people get things wrong its unreal, very few seem to get it right or teach anything close to the actual religion, a few do but most don't.

 

[Windwalker]

Sure it is. It neither backs Christianity (is pro) or is neutral toward it.

You obviously didn't read the article. It concludes,

This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Instead, Christians seeking greater understanding of their religion should view it as an attempt to save the Bible from the ignorance, hatred and bias that has been heaped upon it. If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it.​

I think it serves a good purpose this way. One can be a Christian without about being these hypocritical Evangelicals ignorant of their own scriptures.

It purposely attacks many of the Biblical aspects deemed critical to Christian belief. Deliberately exposing them, it puts Christianity on extremely shaky ground; leaving the reader wonder if there's anything in the Bible that can be relied on.

You should read the last section in its entirety. I think it will help you out a little here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

Thoughts on this?

The article is irresponsibly shallow.

 

[Windwalker]

The article is irresponsibly shallow.

It's a NewsWeek article. You expect a scholastic treatise?

What I see the positive aspect of it is that it is raising awareness of these areas to the general public, which otherwise is ignorant of, unlike those like us in religious forums who are much more deeply aware of and discuss at length. It may hopeful let mainstream religion wake up a little bit to those who claim to represent the Bible in their teachings as basically hypocrites and frauds.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a NewsWeek article. You expect a scholastic treatise?

Point well taken ...

 

[lovemuffin]

I read this a month ago or so when it came out. I am generally sympathetic to the general point about Christians not understanding the Bible very well, but I think a lot of the actual analysis is pretty shallow. For example

- The quote from Ehrman about textual variations is a little misleading, and probably out of context. 99% of those variations amount to typos. They go on to say that a little later, but it still seems a bit over-dramatized

- There isn’t actually any real issue with translating προσκυνέω, it just requires a footnote. It's a standard translational difficulty that the translated words can't really encompass the entire meaning and connotation of the original.

- The KJV isn't the gold standard of bibles (I guess this is a nitpick)

- The question about the Trinity ends up pre-supposing that somehow the fact that the 4th century formulation of trinitarianism doesn't appear as such in the Bible makes it invalid. Basically it pre-supposes sola scriptura, but that's also not in the Bible

- They also characterize that as a deception but I think that's reading the assumption back into church history in an anachronistic way. Not that the politics of the 4th century Byzantine empire is without machinations, and it's certainly true that most people underappreciate the variety of Christian belief in the first several centuries, but they don't really demonstrate any deception. What is certainly true, imo, is that "Christology" in the Bible is ambiguous at best, hence the controversy to begin with.

- Then they imply that the fact that "form" could have been translated "image" in Philippians is deceptive, but that seems like a non-sequitur. The hymn in Colossians 1 uses "image of God", and certainly has a pretty high Christology. "He is before all things and in him all things hold together".

- They mention 1 Corinthians 8 but ignore the fact that there are interesting arguments (mainly N.T. Wright's, I think) that 1 Cor 8:6 actually holds a very high Christology also, in using Kyrios in a way that references the Septuagint translation of the Tetragrammaton, and in the way that Paul recites this formulation (One God, the Father...and One Lord, Jesus Christ) in support of the unity of God, against the reality of idols. I suppose it's sort of nit-picky to object that they don't mention this but given the knowing tone of the article it seems like it's worth pointing out as an objection. Mainly the problem is they present the issue as if it's very clear cut and one-sided, and I think it's really quite a bit more ambiguous than that.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Kind of surprised a main stream news magazine like Newsweek would carry such an anti-Christianity article.

Unless you believe that biblical illiteracy is an inherent Christian quality, I fail to see how the article was specifically "Anti-Christianity."

 

[Skwim]

You obviously didn't read the article. It concludes,

This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Instead, Christians seeking greater understanding of their religion should view it as an attempt to save the Bible from the ignorance, hatred and bias that has been heaped upon it. If Christians truly want to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion, they have to know it.​

I think it serves a good purpose this way. One can be a Christian without about being these hypocritical Evangelicals ignorant of their own scriptures.

It is against the continued belief of many aspects germane to Christian belief. It's an attempt to rid Christianity of these erroneous beliefs and create a new understanding of the Bible by correcting its errors. It is against, "anti," the current comprehension of the Bible. Not saying this is bad, but in as much as very few Christians appear to have any desire to correct their beliefs, I very much doubt they will regard this news as something "they have to know to treat the New Testament as the foundation of the religion."

You should read the last section in its entirety. I think it will help you out a little here.

I will. Thanks for the suggestion.