I'm reading through the bible myself (for the first time as a complete work) and some of it has left my mouth hanging open.  I will be following this thread for sure.  I think that the best thing I did was accept that the bible is an ancient book written for ancient times and that we have to take from it what we can today.  Knowing that has really given the bible back to me.  I understand that the bible has been rewritten and handed down and that not all of what made it to the "final draft" is what God intended us to hear.  I've been trying to read between the lines and really feel for God in what has been written.  I think that you can find many viewpoints in the bible and that taking isolated scriptures can really be misleading.  I think that it is wrong to blindly follow scripture without really thinking about its validity.  I was a little shocked to read a bit in Genesis that would totally support capital punishment.  Which leads me to the next point that the bible is often contradictory (capital punishment vs. thou shall not kill).  I don't have the answers, but I understand your quandary. 

Hi, Freundly-Giant...

I do believe that everyone chooses their own "canon" - the parts of the bible they give more or less power in their lives. We human beings are really good at rationalizing things - eg. "Oh, no, we don't follow all of the dietary laws laid out in Leviticus, 'cause we're part of the 'new' covenant. And don't you remember Peter's dream?"

As someone who regularly reflects on scripture as part of my job, I find I've got two major tasks - the first is getting a bit of a sense of what the scripture might have meant in its original context. In theological jargon we call this process "exegesis". One of the important things I constantly need to remember is that, while we may be able to get close to an understanding of what a specific scripture meant in its context, we're never going to be able to understand it completely - partially because of translation difficulties, partially because the world-view we live in is totally different from the one in which the passage was initially shared. The second part is reflecting on what that scripture might mean in my/our context - right here, right now, (in my case, in Metro Vancouver in the early part of the 21st century). Does it mean something similar to what it meant when it was first written? Might God actually be saying something else? Jargon for this one: "hermanutics".

I believe that God speaks to us through the words in the scripture - but that the text as we have it is a pretty darn human document. I wonder if Paul would have written his words in the same way, if he knew they'd be read 2000ish years later, as a primary way of understanding Christ? When we realize that the library we call the bible was written over 2000 years - and was therefore written in a number of different eras in a developing culture - well... people's understandings of God went through some pretty major changes over that time.

Christ's peace - rb

For sure we pick and choose and we have favourite writers too.

I think in many ways , as lay people reading the bible, we are at a tremendous disadvantage.  We dont' have the knowledge of the time at all.  When something is writen we can totally miss the point if we dont' understand the context.

It is one of the things I love about my minister.  He is very good at talking about the time and the culture.  I learn alot of him that way.

and while many love to take the bible as a book that appeared in it's present form we know that isn't correct.  the oral traditions were writen down, they were revised and the writers were including them for a reason.  We just might not know the reason.

Something I read the other day stuck with me.  It was as to why Mark, who most historians agree wrote the first book, included what he did.  the comment was that if you had to write the life story of someone who had been teachign for three years dont' you think you would have had more annecdotal stoires.

I mean why those ones and why like that. 

if you wanted to tell the story, wouldn't you start at the beginning and tell it day by day, month by month?

It's funny because i had sort of thought of the Gospels that way.  And yet it was pointed out to me in this book that the Gospels aren't like that at all.  they don't tell a day by day , month by month story at all.

So then what was Mark trying to say to the church of his people and why did he use those stoires to tell it.

Interesting isn't it?

You have a good question. I think at least part of the answer is to educate ourselves as much as possible about what it says, the history, the translations, the context, everything. Let me give you a funny story (not mine originally).

A panda walks into a restaurant and orders a meal. The waiter brings him the bill and the panda pulls out a gun, kills him and starts to take off. The manager screams "why did you do that?". The panda says "I'm a panda. Look it up in the dictionary". The manager does that. The dictionary says "Panda: A large black and white mammal that eats shoots and leaves".

Sometimes just a little something in what is (or isn't) written can make a big difference.

You are wise far, far beyond your years, in my opinion.  Most Christians I've even communicated with spend their entire lives (up to that point at least) without your thoughts ever crossing their minds.  Worse, when this is pointed out, there is a concerted effort to deny it completely.  Keep it up, please!  :-)

First off, thanks for that story, jon. I'm nearly in tears.

Second, I think I understande what the bible should be viewed as. Not so much a line for line "guide to life" but a book that is full of truths, we just need to have more than a ninth grade reading level to understand them.

The Bible needs to be read as a whole, but it also needs to be recognized that it isn't really a single book by one author. It's more like going through a collection of short stories on a theme than a novel, if you like. The key is to realize that some of the picky details aren't necessarily the core truth. However, by reading and understanding those details in context (i.e. by looking at the spiritual and historical environment in which they were written) we can find the core truths that we can apply in our context. This applies to other scripture as well, IMHO. When I spoke on scripture in my UU fellowship, I put forward the idea that as we read through our spiritual sources we tend to build our own, personal internalized scripture that is individual to each of us. In UU'ism we have six sources which ultimately encompass everything from personal mystical experience to science to the teachings of world religions. This means that few, if any, UUs really have experience of all of the possible sources. Obviously in Christianity you tend to focus on one (the Bible) but may draw on others, eg. personal experience of the Divine. However, if you truly engage with the Bible and interpret it in the context of both it's history and your own, you will likely come to a "personal scripture" as well.

When reading the Bible you have to keep in mind WHEN the stories were written and HOW the stories were put together. We pick in choose because we want to relate to the early teachings... we can`t follow the bible word for word because if we did, the world would be a very different place, and as a woman I can say I wouldn't like that very much.  

bingo.  Not necessarily "more than a ninth grade reading level" since, as Richard points out, even those whose profession is to study the Bible can't be sure they've understood the original intent exactly. (which is one reason we have over 30,000 Christian denominations and sects). But certainly an understanding that every approach to the Bible is an interpretation, no matter how much some might pretend otherwise.

Although I've always approached the Bible as a human document, it wasn't until I reached a different understanding of God that the old book gained a new "feel" for me. That's God as agapé, loving relationship (not 'love"). Starting from there, one can look at the Bible in a new light, and one of those "truths" that you mention becomes how imperfectly the church fathers implemented the message they had, and how many times they got it wrong. Or at least how many times the filtered and interpreted version of the story we have is just not in harmony with an agapé Divinity.

David

I, for one, do a lot of picking and chosing. I do that because what we now have for a New Testament was the result of a lot of picking and chosing back in the second and third century.

You pick and choose in life all the time, too. Who you hang out with and who better not. How to interpret events, people happening to you. Who's wisdom to take on and consider and what to dismiss. God isn't just written in a book.

Shane Claiborne tells this story:

A lot of what we believe about money and its hold on our lives comes from the story of the rich young ruler. What are your thoughts on that story?

Love that line! 

Once when I was young I made a remark about the important passages of the Bible and an older woman jumped all over me  "Every verse in the Bible is important?"  Equally so?   Back then I respected my elders.  I didn't ask her:

"Can you quote John 3:16?"  Of course she could have. 

"Ok, can you quote Micah 3: 16?  or Judges 3: 16?   or in the New Testament, Jude 3: 16?"    I would venture a guess that she couldn't.  Can anyone?  Very obviously she had picked and chosen John 3: 16 as basic and important to her religious beliefs. 

Are all parts of the Bible important?   I think so - to be read as background, to understand in their historic context, to see how people thought and acted at that time in those circumsances and to find out what we can learn from them.  But of course we pick and choose what we will base our faith on.

Somewhere in Nehemiah God's people are urged to put away (divorce) their foreign wives and to deny their children - in order to keep God's people pure.  Now, I'm leading worship some this summer.  I wonder if I should find that passage and preach a sermon on it? 

Very good point seeler, it is all important but we do have favorites don't we.

Different stories or quotes from scripture will stand out to us, according to where we are in our life & how those passeges speak to us in relation to what we are going through.

I always find the story of Esther a very good read ineed. there is something about that book that intregues me.

Hey Giant, nice haircut!  I'ts nice to see you show that bright sunshining face of yours now, no need to cover a great face like that!

bolt

Yes, I think you should but be diligent and search all the scripture to find the true meaning of which passage you are speaking..

Exactly.  Emphasize the softer, gentler side of racial purity.

How about .... murdering them in their beds is bad - hard to get the blood out of the sheepskins?  OT stuff tended to be practical like that.

You do have a way with words Dave.

Bolt

Great question.  I think we always pick and choose what we like and avoid what we dislike.  And so, we need to discern between different kinds of liking/disliking.

Sometimes liking/disliking might mean "what I like in scripture because I can mold it to get what I want out of it" and "what I don't like in scripture because it challenges me to grow as a person."

At other times, liking/disliking might mean "I like this because it makes me happy and helps me grow, even though it may be challenging at times" and "I don't like this because there's something toxic and unhealthy about it."

So a lot depends on the kind of liking and disliking that's driving our picking and choosing.

By the way, I like your new haircut. Very cute.

Would it be nice if we could get the hole' story of the religious syntax together? Some say there are no contradictions ... I think it is pure chaos like the waters of Babylon .. we attempt to filter the meaning of the infinite in small parts. Take all this water to a sandy beach or a desert place ... sans are good for filtering outside (myth) of the primal medium. Get outside oneself on an inner journey? Go way wit' yah ... that wouldn't really expand non space ... would it?

How many books were burnt, thrown out for sundried reasons?

Neuroscientists say that the soul is story and the converse holds. Does this mean that what we pick and choose from the syntax tells something of our spirit (mind set) within/without? Does that spirit of wondering force the soul to expand/condense?

If the holy books are not even about the physical side, rather the metaphysical life of spirit (emotions) and intellect (mind, soul); would it be good to prevent division, divorce of the pair by use of terrorism and fear? Sorry to those that do not believe in God (primal emotion, ID) or mind (soul, psyche or whatever words that describe nothing to you)! It is a rather spacey thought eh ... theis thing about intangibles in other dimensions!

It is odd that in ancient myth both the soul and spirit are considered ephemeral, flighty, fey, indeterminate? Man would hate something that he couldn't possess eh. Could this translate into a blind hate by someone that didn't catch on to the meaning of archetype ... understanding, underpinnings ... the pillars of life? My God what a huge miz understanding ... a mis take of life itself?

Should we correct the situation or just observe and see how the experiment plays out? Learning cycle on the outside aspect?Ominiscience (all seeing) ... vision into the dark side? Funny stuff eh ... soul ... spirit! Sort of une-rael'd like a scroll ... difficult for the illiterate (like ammonite) hard to crack? Then who knows if you keep digging into the shell ... shuol in Hebrew is one hell of a Job for the floating vessel ... gone aground! Prudence about who yah walk on now! Carry a long stick ... there might be holes along alien! One has to adjust bouy ante sea when off the waters ... thus vaporous mysts were born by man ... Dans Trix ... nick o'demuse out of his tree. Who could make such a vast tale and then scatter the parts ... two persona's of opposing views in creation?