• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How to Read the Bible

My problem with the Pentateuch. Modern Near Eastern Archaeology since the end of WW2 has extensively investigated the archaeology of the Near East. And has demonstrated that the Pentateuch is not history. It is now the consensus of expert Near East archaeologists that there was no Egyptian captivity. No Exodus. No Moses and Joshua fighting their way to and across Canaan. The cities supposedly destroyed by Joshua were not in fact destroyed by Joshua and his Israelites. All of this is faux history written centuries after the supposed events related by the Pentateuch.

And thus no stop of Moses on the mount communing with God. The "hammer verses' of Leviticus 18 and 20 condemning homosexuality for example, were not from God. But still some 2700 later these lies of some bigoted priest still make lives of some miserable.

This also means that if there is in fact a God, that God did not command the murders, massacres and genocide we find in the Pentateuch.

This Pentateuch, which supposedly tells us a lot about God and God's nature does no mention hell or heaven. Does not mention life after death. Does not mention heavan or hell, Satan and devils.

It is a primitive pack of lies, and I am offended at being lead around by the snout by some ancient lying priests. I do not find it admirable for the most part, not true, not literally or allegorically. My stance on this offends a lot of people, but so be it.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
My problem with the Pentateuch. Modern Near Eastern Archaeology since the end of WW2 has extensively investigated the archaeology of the Near East. And has demonstrated that the Pentateuch is not history. It is now the consensus of expert Near East archaeologists that there was no Egyptian captivity. No Exodus. No Moses and Joshua fighting their way to and across Canaan. The cities supposedly destroyed by Joshua were not in fact destroyed by Joshua and his Israelites. All of this is faux history written centuries after the supposed events related by the Pentateuch.

And thus no stop of Moses on the mount communing with God. The "hammer verses' of Leviticus 18 and 20 condemning homosexuality for example, were not from God. But still some 2700 later these lies of some bigoted priest still make lives of some miserable.

This also means that if there is in fact a God, that God did not command the murders, massacres and genocide we find in the Pentateuch.

This Pentateuch, which supposedly tells us a lot about God and God's nature does no mention hell or heaven. Does not mention life after death. Does not mention heavan or hell, Satan and devils.

It is a primitive pack of lies, and I am offended at being lead around by the snout by some ancient lying priests. I do not find it admirable for the most part, not true, not literally or allegorically. My stance on this offends a lot of people, but so be it.
Click to expand...

No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
My problem with the Pentateuch. Modern Near Eastern Archaeology since the end of WW2 has extensively investigated the archaeology of the Near East. And has demonstrated that the Pentateuch is not history. It is now the consensus of expert Near East archaeologists that there was no Egyptian captivity. No Exodus. No Moses and Joshua fighting their way to and across Canaan. The cities supposedly destroyed by Joshua were not in fact destroyed by Joshua and his Israelites. All of this is faux history written centuries after the supposed events related by the Pentateuch.

And thus no stop of Moses on the mount communing with God. The "hammer verses' of Leviticus 18 and 20 condemning homosexuality for example, were not from God. But still some 2700 later these lies of some bigoted priest still make lives of some miserable.

This also means that if there is in fact a God, that God did not command the murders, massacres and genocide we find in the Pentateuch.

This Pentateuch, which supposedly tells us a lot about God and God's nature does no mention hell or heaven. Does not mention life after death. Does not mention heavan or hell, Satan and devils.

It is a primitive pack of lies, and I am offended at being lead around by the snout by some ancient lying priests. I do not find it admirable for the most part, not true, not literally or allegorically. My stance on this offends a lot of people, but so be it.
Click to expand...

No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but every age interprets the Bible the way they want to so that they can fit it for their times. I’m with cheerful Charlie here. It’s morality is extremely outdated. At no point does it say it’s ok to be gay. It calls for bizarre things like rapists to marry their victim, and children to suffer beatings. It’s used today to justify everything from genocide to bigotry. The sooner we chuck it out, the better we will be. It should be viewed as a historical anachronism and nothing more.

SLD
 
It says what it all says. God commanded murders, massacres and genocides. No, that is not true. God commanded death to homosexuals. No that is not true. And that matters. And lots more that is utterly and totally false. The only reasonable way to approach these texts is to admit that they are based on lies and faux, made up "histories" that never happened. And to be done with them for once and for all.

The problem is the large numbers of people who still believe the Bible is literally written by God or was inspired by God. And want to force their bad religion down our throats.

See for example, "Project Blitz".

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/13/th...e-christian-right-plan-to-remodel-the-nation/
 
Though Twain has been quoted often, here again is his teaspoon definition of the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has some noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
(from Letters from the Earth)
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Rhea said:
Hi HaRaAYaH, I can’t download video. Rural bandwidth too slow.



But are you saying that the bible doesn’t make sense if you’re not a bronze-age human?
Why does the god need to be in partnership with humans in order to communicate? It communicated directly back then, but lost its powers, maybe?
I don’t get why it was not powerful enough to write a bible that makes sense in any age. Puzzling, isn’t it.
Click to expand...

So the Bible was an oral tradition. It was passed down orally. That means the language was clipped. Things were left out that were understood by people of that era. Think of someone looking at a string of text messages today. Without a commentary explaining the vernacular of the time what dp you think the future will think of our messages.

Also, any translation is itself a commentary. You need a commentary to understand the language and the vernacular of the time. A modern parallel is the US constitution. They are just words and yet we need the Supreme Court to explain what it means. Can't you just read the words and understand it?
Click to expand...


I get that, and it all makes perfect sense if there is no God.

Am I correct in understanding you that the very best that an all powerful god could possibly accomplish is equal to the level of bronze age humans?
 
HaRaAYaH said:
No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
Click to expand...

How should we approach it, then? It sounds like you are suggesting that the only honest way to approach it is like the National Enquirer? I ask that question seriously.
 
Rhea said:
HaRaAYaH said:
No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
Click to expand...

How should we approach it, then? It sounds like you are suggesting that the only honest way to approach it is like the National Enquirer? I ask that question seriously.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In order to understand an ancient text, you must understand the language and culture in which it was produced. Especially in an oral tradition when details of a story were left out as they were understood by the community at the time. The words are words and mean what they mean is not accurate and never was. Words and phrases mean different things to different people. That is why you need to approach the text with a guide. A person who does not believe the text to be historical will appreciate the Plaut commentary i linked to above as it has fair amount of modern Biblical criticism. The layman who has no exposure to Jewish tradition would be totally lost in Heschel's Heavenly Torah.

I'll give you the same examples

1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted now to mean anyone can own anything. A clear reading of the text me is you need to be part of a well regulated Militia. But that is not what the US constitution says.

2) If you go forward in time 4000 years and find a cell phone and power it up and you look through some text messages you would have hard time understanding the communication without some guide to what the acronyms mean.

I'm not trying to convince you there is a God, if there is a God, the God of the Bible is good or bad. I'm just trying to show you that picking up a text written thousands of years ago in a different language and expecting any understanding of the text without understanding the language and the culture in which it was written will prove fruitless. That is why you need a guide, a commentary.

The other thing I want to stress to people is the text is meaningless in comparison to what man does with the text. Judaism is an interpretation of the Torah. The death penalty is one example, the eye for an eye is another. The law of the Sotah was abolished. If I had time I could go through the text and find more. The point is, explore the text and take it for what it says to you, which may be nothing.

If you have no interest in exploring the text, don't. If you have an understanding of the text by reading it on your own, live and he happy. If however, you want to read the text as the OP asked, I gave you a way to approach it and understand it from a religious and historic POV.

Also, I never debate theology with anyone. I don't care what you believe, I only care how you act. If you are a good person and you don't believe in God, I'd rather hang with you than be with a believer who was not a good person....
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Rhea said:
HaRaAYaH said:
No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
Click to expand...

How should we approach it, then? It sounds like you are suggesting that the only honest way to approach it is like the National Enquirer? I ask that question seriously.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In order to understand an ancient text, you must understand the language and culture in which it was produced. Especially in an oral tradition when details of a story were left out as they were understood by the community at the time. The words are words and mean what they mean is not accurate and never was. Words and phrases mean different things to different people. That is why you need to approach the text with a guide. A person who does not believe the text to be historical will appreciate the Plaut commentary i linked to above as it has fair amount of modern Biblical criticism. The layman who has no exposure to Jewish tradition would be totally lost in Heschel's Heavenly Torah.
.... snip ....
Click to expand...

It isn't just a problem with ancient text. A transliteration of modern Spanish, German, Swedish, etc. into English will produce a jumble of nonsense. It is meaning that must be translated not words. This is why the very early computer translation programs were almost worthless - they transliterated.

An ad campaign back when the American Dairy Association was pushing for people to drink more milk used the catch phrase "Got Milk?". The meaning was clear to U.S. citizens who spoke English. The ad agency decided to appeal to the Hispanic communities along the southern border so transliterated the catch phrase as, "Tienes Leche?" which in Mexican Spanish means, "Are you lactating?". This message was prominently displayed on billboards along the highways of southern Texas.
 
The bible is not a history? It certainly is the history of a small ethnic group and it refelcts that culture. Myths, lasws, traditions.

it is

1. A creation myth common feature in all cultures.
2. A set of myths that reinforce the group. Power and justification. Another common human theme.
3. A set of rules and dicates. There are 613 specific rules or guidelines that can be pulled out. I had a thread on the list.
4. A genealogy, who begat who.
5. Not a complete history but a set of period histories.
6. Moral tales and wisdom literature. Proverbs and Job as a moral tale.
7 A cultural narrative of always being a victim.
8 The idea of being the special minions of a god, that too is not unique. Noses parting the waters defeating Egypt.

The bible is crude in comparison but it is just another cultural narrative. Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and the rest. American Native Americans, Incas, Mayans, Aztecs. All gave cultural narratives, histories, mythologies, and gods of sorts.

The bible is not unique. It is the epitome of arrogance for Jews to say they are the one and only based on the bible.

The idea that it is more than that being the inspired interaction between god and Jews is part and parcel of the Jewish narrative.
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Rhea said:
HaRaAYaH said:
No it is not history. But this thread is not about the historicity of the text. It is about how to approach the text and understand what it is trying to say. Just because some modern morons wave the book as a excuse to discriminate against homosexuals says more about the morons than the book.
Click to expand...

How should we approach it, then? It sounds like you are suggesting that the only honest way to approach it is like the National Enquirer? I ask that question seriously.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In order to understand an ancient text, you must understand the language and culture in which it was produced. Especially in an oral tradition when details of a story were left out as they were understood by the community at the time. The words are words and mean what they mean is not accurate and never was. Words and phrases mean different things to different people. That is why you need to approach the text with a guide. A person who does not believe the text to be historical will appreciate the Plaut commentary i linked to above as it has fair amount of modern Biblical criticism. The layman who has no exposure to Jewish tradition would be totally lost in Heschel's Heavenly Torah.

I'll give you the same examples

1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted now to mean anyone can own anything. A clear reading of the text me is you need to be part of a well regulated Militia. But that is not what the US constitution says.

2) If you go forward in time 4000 years and find a cell phone and power it up and you look through some text messages you would have hard time understanding the communication without some guide to what the acronyms mean.

I'm not trying to convince you there is a God, if there is a God, the God of the Bible is good or bad. I'm just trying to show you that picking up a text written thousands of years ago in a different language and expecting any understanding of the text without understanding the language and the culture in which it was written will prove fruitless. That is why you need a guide, a commentary.

The other thing I want to stress to people is the text is meaningless in comparison to what man does with the text. Judaism is an interpretation of the Torah. The death penalty is one example, the eye for an eye is another. The law of the Sotah was abolished. If I had time I could go through the text and find more. The point is, explore the text and take it for what it says to you, which may be nothing.

If you have no interest in exploring the text, don't. If you have an understanding of the text by reading it on your own, live and he happy. If however, you want to read the text as the OP asked, I gave you a way to approach it and understand it from a religious and historic POV.

Also, I never debate theology with anyone. I don't care what you believe, I only care how you act. If you are a good person and you don't believe in God, I'd rather hang with you than be with a believer who was not a good person....
Click to expand...

I understand and agree. In what way is that different from how future people should explore thousand-year old copy of the National Enquirer?
 
Rhea said:
I understand and agree. In what way is that different from how future people should explore thousand-year old copy of the National Enquirer?
Click to expand...

The same way they would read the:
  • The New York Times
  • The Washington Post
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • USA Today
  • etc
 
skepticalbip said:
HaRaAYaH said:
Not at all. In order to understand an ancient text, you must understand the language and culture in which it was produced. Especially in an oral tradition when details of a story were left out as they were understood by the community at the time. The words are words and mean what they mean is not accurate and never was. Words and phrases mean different things to different people. That is why you need to approach the text with a guide. A person who does not believe the text to be historical will appreciate the Plaut commentary i linked to above as it has fair amount of modern Biblical criticism. The layman who has no exposure to Jewish tradition would be totally lost in Heschel's Heavenly Torah.
.... snip ....
Click to expand...

It isn't just a problem with ancient text. A transliteration of modern Spanish, German, Swedish, etc. into English will produce a jumble of nonsense. It is meaning that must be translated not words. This is why the very early computer translation programs were almost worthless - they transliterated.

An ad campaign back when the American Dairy Association was pushing for people to drink more milk used the catch phrase "Got Milk?". The meaning was clear to U.S. citizens who spoke English. The ad agency decided to appeal to the Hispanic communities along the southern border so transliterated the catch phrase as, "Tienes Leche?" which in Mexican Spanish means, "Are you lactating?". This message was prominently displayed on billboards along the highways of southern Texas.
Click to expand...

I love this. Did you know when Grapes of Wrath was released in Japan the Translation was "Angry Raisins"
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Rhea said:
I understand and agree. In what way is that different from how future people should explore thousand-year old copy of the National Enquirer?
Click to expand...

The same way they would read the:
  • The New York Times
  • The Washington Post
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • USA Today
  • etc
Click to expand...

Okay, it sounds like we are in agreement and you do not think the bible has any divine component.
Though I would point out that while the Enquirer might publish something about walking on water, levitating into space, bears mauling boys at the behest of a priest or zombies coming out of their graves, the papers you list are unlikely to have ever published things that defy nature to that extent.
 
Rhea said:
HaRaAYaH said:
Rhea said:
I understand and agree. In what way is that different from how future people should explore thousand-year old copy of the National Enquirer?
Click to expand...

The same way they would read the:
  • The New York Times
  • The Washington Post
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • USA Today
  • etc
Click to expand...

Okay, it sounds like we are in agreement and you do not think the bible has any divine component.
Though I would point out that while the Enquirer might publish something about walking on water, levitating into space, bears mauling boys at the behest of a priest or zombies coming out of their graves, the papers you list are unlikely to have ever published things that defy nature to that extent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't speak for HaRaAYaH but I think what he is saying is that an understanding of the cultural peculiarities, word use, idioms, stories, etc. of those who wrote the text need to be understood to understand the meaning and intent of the text. For example, the NYT could easily print a story saying the the President flew to Geneva for a conference. In a couple thousand years, someone reading that could interpret that as saying that the president could fly like an albatross not knowing, in our culture, that in this case the use of the word "flying" means being a passenger on an airplane.
 
Last edited:
skepticalbip said:
Rhea said:
Okay, it sounds like we are in agreement and you do not think the bible has any divine component.
Though I would point out that while the Enquirer might publish something about walking on water, levitating into space, bears mauling boys at the behest of a priest or zombies coming out of their graves, the papers you list are unlikely to have ever published things that defy nature to that extent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't speak for HaRaAYaH but I think what he is saying is that an understanding of the cultural peculiarities, word use, idioms, stories, etc. of those who wrote the text need to be understood to understand the meaning and intent of the text. For example, the NYT could easily print a story saying the the President flew to Geneva for a conference. In a couple thousand years, someone reading that could interpret that as saying that the president could fly like an albatross not knowing, in our culture, that in this case the use of the word "flying" means being a passenger on an airplane.
Click to expand...


I think I understand. The bible is like any other book or tabloid that says fantastical things as well as some normal things. And you need to know what the local idioms of the time were to tell the difference. This is obvious and undisputed.

He seems to also say that the many translators of the bible do NOT know this, and therefore you need extra preparation and resources in order to properly interpret those translations. That to date, no one has done it right. There is no extant bible translation that has properly employed the links HaYra provided.

None of this, furthermore, can be used to support any divinity in the bible, because walking on water and raising the dead could be an idiom.

And that is “how you should read the Bible.”


Please tell me where I’m wrong so I can understand. Or perhaps confirm whether it’s true that not a single translation did it correctly according to HaYra.
 
skepticalbip said:
I love this. Did you know when Grapes of Wrath was released in Japan the Translation was "Angry Raisins"
Click to expand...

I don't have a date I heard in a talk by Christopher Buckley. One of the funniest men on the planet

You can view it here
 
Last edited:
Rhea said:
skepticalbip said:
Rhea said:
Okay, it sounds like we are in agreement and you do not think the bible has any divine component.
Though I would point out that while the Enquirer might publish something about walking on water, levitating into space, bears mauling boys at the behest of a priest or zombies coming out of their graves, the papers you list are unlikely to have ever published things that defy nature to that extent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't speak for HaRaAYaH but I think what he is saying is that an understanding of the cultural peculiarities, word use, idioms, stories, etc. of those who wrote the text need to be understood to understand the meaning and intent of the text. For example, the NYT could easily print a story saying the the President flew to Geneva for a conference. In a couple thousand years, someone reading that could interpret that as saying that the president could fly like an albatross not knowing, in our culture, that in this case the use of the word "flying" means being a passenger on an airplane.
Click to expand...


I think I understand. The bible is like any other book or tabloid that says fantastical things as well as some normal things. And you need to know what the local idioms of the time were to tell the difference. This is obvious and undisputed.

He seems to also say that the many translators of the bible do NOT know this, and therefore you need extra preparation and resources in order to properly interpret those translations. That to date, no one has done it right. There is no extant bible translation that has properly employed the links HaYra provided.

None of this, furthermore, can be used to support any divinity in the bible, because walking on water and raising the dead could be an idiom.

And that is “how you should read the Bible.”


Please tell me where I’m wrong so I can understand. Or perhaps confirm whether it’s true that not a single translation did it correctly according to HaYra.
Click to expand...

That is putting a lot of words in my mouth as well as misspelling my acronym. My views of the text are not any more important to yours. It's a text. whether you are Orthodox and believe that God gave the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai and it has been passed down from generation to generation in an unbroken chain, a person who believes it was divinely inspired , or created entirely by human beings. It matters not. Whether you are reading the Bible, The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The US constitution or Fedralist #10, you must understand the language and culture of the time to understand what the text is saying.

Every translation is by definition a commentary. If you picked up the Plaut Commentary I linked to above, you would have no trouble understanding what the editors were trying to convey whether you you read the text in English or Hebrew. Since you have no knowledge of Halacha, Agaddah or the Talmudic way if thinking you would be lost picking up Heschel's commentary. Even though it is entirely in English. I'm not arguing for any particular position. For better or worse it's a foundational text in US society. I'm giving you a way to understand what the authors/editors are trying to get across.

It is a complicated text with multiple levels of meaning. Do with it what you want, but the National Enquirer is only foundational at the bottom of bird cages
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom