Bible Study - From a non-religious kiwi

[Help Me Move This Table]

Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.

 

[Basil Julep]

One thing that made the Bible a lot easier for me to read was this 1300 page book, Asimov's Guide to the Bible. It has a history lesson for each book of the bible so you can read the bible with some context.

 

[TheRetardKing]

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.

I like the Book of Job. I especially like Chapter 39, and specifically this verse:

Spoiler: 19-25

“Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry."

Chapters 38 and 39 has God highlighting creation (flora and fauna) as examples of his supremacy as a rebuttal to Job. Horses are also my favorite animal.

 

[Opticana]

Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.

Luther was effusive in his praise of Psalms - he called the book "the Bible in miniature", and he was spot on with that. Psalm 104 is at the top of a lot of lists, and while it's a tremendously beautiful piece, its neighbors 105 and 106 are my favorites. They each emphasize a different view of Israel's history - 105 recounts all the kindnesses God performed for them, and 106 lays into them for being unthankful and rebelling against him. Interestingly, the splitting of the sea is listed as a "rebellion" episode rather than a "miracle" one (it's absent from 105 entirely). This is probably due to the author/editor being influenced by the extremely critical historiography in Ezekiel, which comes out in a couple of other places in 106,

Speaking of Ezekiel, the vision of the dry bones is one of my favorites as well:

Spoiler: Ezekiel 37

37 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out [a]by the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. 3 He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord [b]God, You know.” 4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.’ 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones, ‘Behold, I will cause [c]breath to enter you that you may come to life. 6 I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a [d]noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life.”’” 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

The Vision Explained​

11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are [e]completely cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 I will put My [f]Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the Lord, have spoken and done it,” declares the Lord.’”

What's really great about this is that the revival of the dead is the *parable* here. On a deeper level the passage is saying is that it's easier for people to grasp the dead returning to life than an exiled, dispersed people returning to their land. The book as a whole is fascinating too; it's the only one in the Hebrew Bible outside of the Torah where there's an extensive discussion of the law, albeit one that's a utopian vision of the future (the last eight chapters). It's Leviticus on steroids.

 

[Some Badger]

Question; what do you mean by this? The ammonites, edomites, etc... were historically Israel's enemies. I don't think most Christians today attribute more to them then that(beyond prophetic interpretations-such as future incarnations of babylon or edom).

I'm saying that these neighboring contemporaries of ancient Israel are viewed as evil by publishers of educational Christian nonfiction in the present day, when it's more likely that those peoples probably weren't any more or less brutal than the Israelites of the time.

 

[Ishtar]

I'm saying that these neighboring contemporaries of ancient Israel are viewed as evil by publishers of educational Christian nonfiction in the present day, when it's more likely that those peoples probably weren't any more or less brutal than the Israelites of the time.

Ah I see. The argument could be made they were heathens but no they were not substantially different from their Israelite neighbors.

 

[1 Guy 1 Taco]

I've been doing some armchair research covering a historical criticism approach to the New Testament. I went in thinking it would give me a better understanding of religion and help me be less agnostic but now I feel like the NT is 80 percent B.S. One of the big questions I've been wrestling with was the divinity of Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. In that regard, I feel like historical criticism has provided some guidance and mostly debunked that theory. I'm at a point where I have no confidence in the Gospel of John and I think the rest of the gospels only have the slightest hint of accuracy. But regardless of how it impacts my future religious endeavors I've come to enjoy it as a hobby. There's a surprising amount of decent content online relating to historical criticism and an endless stream of books. I don't have the balls to start tackling the Hebrew Bible though. I imagine it would be even more difficult to wrap my mind around that content.

 

[Opticana]

I've been doing some armchair research covering a historical criticism approach to the New Testament. I went in thinking it would give me a better understanding of religion and help me be less agnostic but now I feel like the NT is 80 percent B.S. One of the big questions I've been wrestling with was the divinity of Jesus and the whole idea of the trinity. In that regard, I feel like historical criticism has provided some guidance and mostly debunked that theory. I'm at a point where I have no confidence in the Gospel of John and I think the rest of the gospels only have the slightest hint of accuracy. But regardless of how it impacts my future religious endeavors I've come to enjoy it as a hobby. There's a surprising amount of decent content online relating to historical criticism and an endless stream of books. I don't have the balls to start tackling the Hebrew Bible though. I imagine it would be even more difficult to wrap my mind around that content.

Purely on practical grounds, yes - the Hebrew Bible is around three times as large as the NT and covers a far greater span of time. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort! And if you enjoy historical criticism than there's certainly no lack of that either; I would argue that the OT is much more conducive to a doubtful form of faith than the NT. Don't trust anything you find on (English) Wikipedia, though. I could sperg about that endlessly.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Ver archivo adjunto 2469204
One thing that made the Bible a lot easier for me to read was this 1300 page book, Asimov's Guide to the Bible. It has a history lesson for each book of the bible so you can read the bible with some context.

Due to being an asimov fan I got that maybe 15 years ago and never started it yet. I started reading bits a couple of weeks ago. My first impression was that he editorialised quite a bit, but perhaps that is to be expected from a secular jew. Will take me quite some time to finish.

 

[Ishtar]

As far as the New Testament goes-there is a lot of variation amongst scholars, in terms of dating, and authorship. Some is more minimalist, others closer to the traditional views.

I'm familiar with the Q belief, in some sort of original manuscript. I don't buy it.

That said, it seems to me from my own research that the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts comport fairly well with historical events as archaeology and contemporaneous literature have revealed them to us.

As far as John goes-its emphasis is on theology, rather than historical documentation or tying to Jewish prophetic concerns-like Luke and Matthew are.

Historical criticism should itself be understood in the context of 19th century Germany and the politics of the time. So I don't get too invested in it.

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.

That is actually rather interesting. Abraham and David and Jacob are not painted as ultra human paragons that lacked weakness or vice. They make mistakes, and get punished for them.

Impressed by the level of knowledge & scholarship here, this is a great thread. Curious about people’s favorite verses/passages, and what you like about them.

Ecclesiastes. Basically its about the futility of life "under the sun". "Everything is vanity, says the Preacher". Solomon or whoever you interpret the writer to be, speaks to the same existential weariness that affects us today. Nothing in this world lasts, yet nothing ever really changes, sex, food, entertainment, people enjoyed and sought those things even three thousand years ago, and still like today found them enjoyable as they are ultimately unfulfilling.

 

[Kosher Dill]

That said, it seems to me from my own research that the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts comport fairly well with historical events as archaeology and contemporaneous literature have revealed them to us.

What archaeological sources are there for Acts? I was under the impression that most of what went on in that book didn't leave much of a historical record, besides very broad things like "There was a church at Antioch".

 

[Ishtar]

What archaeological sources are there for Acts? I was under the impression that most of what went on in that book didn't leave much of a historical record, besides very broad things like "There was a church at Antioch".

I'd have to look into it. Certain governors for example, the tetrarchy in Judea, among other things, local rebellions.

Acts itself takes place somewhere in the early forties to fifties AD. In the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor. (Though I believe I heard someone thinks Paul's conversion was actually 37 AD).

That's the clincher with the Bible-its set within a definite historical time and place, not some pagan "time before time" or "age forgotten before the world was as it is".

Like say the Aborigine Dream Time or whenever the Greek myths were supposed to have occurred.

 

[jorgoth]

I was thinking that maybe the Bible was written to allow the Israelites/Jews to feel better about themselves while they themselves lived in exile. Maybe all that stuff about wiping out cities at God's command was just chest-thumping. "We were total badasses who would just commit genocide at God's command, we weren't matrilineal cucks like we are now."

Part of my reasoning on this is that you can see a process like that taking place right now with black Americans. All that bullshit about WE WUZ KANGZ and WE WUZ REAL ISRAELITES is obviously an attempt on the part of a subjugated and deracinated people to create a culture and a birthright where none exists, maybe the actual Israelites were no different.

 

[Bad Gateway]

Just read the book you dumb nigger its not that hard

 

[Shroom King]

I love how King David is getting taken to task in this thread.

Christians name their kids Jesus or Christian, because, you know, Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Muslims name their kids Muhammad, because, you know, Muhammad was Allah's greatest prophet.

A lot of Jews are named David; the two-timing corrupt warmongering fuck that puts Dracula to shame. Really makes you think...

 

[Fek]

E-Sword is a helpful resource for anyone in the process of furthering their understanding of Scripture. Strong's Concordance (included in the previous link) also helps a great deal when you're trying to figure out what the Bible is actually trying to tell you. Additionally, I'd recommend the New English Translation of the Bible to anyone who maybe didn't care for trying to wade through the harder to understand phrasings in previous Bible translations, and also cares a great deal about authenticity of the message. A lot of Biblical translations are based on an ancient (the 3rd oldest, which should immediately raise some eyebrows..) translation of the original texts that was an ever so subtle smear job designed to make everyone's favorite rootless vagrants seem far more important and prominent than they really were. Yes, really.

Speaking of their role in Biblical perversion..

A lot of Jews are named David; the two-timing corrupt warmongering fuck that puts Dracula to shame. Really makes you think...

Just for fun, here's a video both relevant to the conversation and great at pissing off the tiny hats:

 

[Opticana]

I think it's a damn shame that this thread is being left to die while people who enjoy arguing about religion are plaguing this other one beyond belief. To start things up again: I recently finished Daniel Block's commentary on Ezekiel, and although I have a few disagreements with him (mostly relating to his interpretation of certain passages in the Torah) it was a superb work overall. Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?

 

[Kosher Dill]

Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?

No, but I'm picking up "Inconsistency in the Torah" on one of your previous recommendations.

 

[Basil Julep]

To start things up again: I recently finished Daniel Block's commentary on Ezekiel, and although I have a few disagreements with him (mostly relating to his interpretation of certain passages in the Torah) it was a superb work overall. Has anyone here read any of his stuff on Deuteronomy?

So I looked this up and all his books on Amazon are around $40. I would totally be down for a book club but that was pretty steep. I should see if I can find one on interlibrary loan.

To start, what if we just read Genesis in November and shared our favorite resources about it? Maybe in December Exodus?