"Arny Krueger" wrote

Stick to audio, David. You do far better there! There's already been a
very large book written about what you don't get about the Bible. It is
called the Bible...

I've read it, even the bits that believers prefer not to. So, are you
denying that the OT depicts a God who is irascible, blood-thirsty and with
an ego problem? If you are I suggest you go back and re-read it.

What the OT actually is, is a lengthy origin myth for the Jewish people. If
you look at the early books particularly you will see that Yahweh is not the
universal God of today, but the partisan tribal god of the Israelites. Even
then there is a lot of historical revisionism involved, the Bible suggests
that the Israelites were monotheistic from the beginning, whereas we know
from archaeology that other gods, such as Baal continued to be worshipped by
the Israelites until after the Babylonian exile. The Israelites were far
more similar to other peoples of the time than they tried to pretend, like
most other races they believed that misfortunes were the result of the gods
being angry with them for imagined failures to follow correct rituals or to
obey religious rules. Unfortunately this way of thinking is not dead, only
the other day I read that a Muslim Imam was claiming that earthquakes were
caused by divine displeasure at "immodest women".

David.

"David Looser" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Stick to audio, David. You do far better there! There's
already been a very large book written about what you
don't get about the Bible. It is called the Bible...

I've read it,

Maybe skimmed it once, or less. No matter, reading and properly
comprehending are two different things.

So, are you denying that the OT depicts a God who is
irascible, blood-thirsty and with an ego problem?

Yes.

If you are I suggest you go back and re-read it.

The idea that you would compare your one untutored partial skimming of the
Bible to my decades of detailed study under excellent teachers, and decalre
yourself my superior is really quite amusing, David.

You sound like you may have thoroughly read and perhaps even re-read the
Classics Illustrated version of the Bible, or maybe browsed the Cliff's
Notes edition...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Stick to audio, David. You do far better there! There's
already been a very large book written about what you
don't get about the Bible. It is called the Bible...

I've read it,

Maybe skimmed it once, or less. No matter, reading and properly
comprehending are two different things.

What is "properly" comprehending? Do you mean comprehending in the way that
a particular church *wants* you to comprehend it?, because I can see no
other meaning of the word "properly" in your sentence. What none of us can
possibly know is what the Biblical texts meant to the original authors.

So, are you denying that the OT depicts a God who is
irascible, blood-thirsty and with an ego problem?

Yes.

If you are I suggest you go back and re-read it.

The idea that you would compare your one untutored partial skimming of the
Bible to my decades of detailed study under excellent teachers, and
decalre yourself my superior is really quite amusing, David.

Hmm..... "untutored", "excellent teachers". So you need to be *taught* to
read the Bible?, why's that then? Perhaps it's because I am "untutored" that
I can read the words that are printed and understand for myself what they
say, rather than having the text "explained", and thus being told what to
think, by "excellent teachers".

You sound like you may have thoroughly read and perhaps even re-read the
Classics Illustrated version of the Bible, or maybe browsed the Cliff's
Notes edition...

Nope. I've read the King James version and the New English Bible.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Stick to audio, David. You do far better there!
There's already been a very large book written about
what you don't get about the Bible. It is called the
Bible...

I've read it,

Maybe skimmed it once, or less. No matter, reading and
properly comprehending are two different things.

What is "properly" comprehending?

That's a fair question.

It has long been an operating principle of the faith that I subscribe to
that the Bible can be interpreted to have meanings that are compatible among
themselves and can be useful. The actual interpretation is of course up to
the individual.


Do you mean
comprehending in the way that a particular church *wants*
you to comprehend it?, because I can see no other meaning
of the word "properly" in your sentence.

The idea that the Bible's proper meaning is entirely defined by a particular
church is of course anathema to any clear-thinking person.

The fact that large and powerful churches have gotten big parts of the Bible
wrong is of course a widely-held opinon. Hence all of the various
Judeo/Christian religions.

OTOH, the Bible is a large book, some parts with clear meaning, some that
are harder to interpret and/or apply. I have found few if any non-trivial
books that I felt that I fully understood with just one reading, no matter
how thorough.

What none of us
can possibly know is what the Biblical texts meant to the
origional authors.

Not hardly a unique situation for just the Bible.



So, are you denying that the OT depicts a God who is
irascible, blood-thirsty and with an ego problem?

Yes.

If you are I suggest you go back and re-read it.

The idea that you would compare your one untutored
partial skimming of the Bible to my decades of detailed
study under excellent teachers, and decalre yourself my
superior is really quite amusing, David.

Hmm..... "untutored", "excellent teachers". So you need
to be *taught* to read the Bible?, why's that then?

Given that the essence of obtaining a University degree is reading books
under the influence of teachers, it is safe to say that this is an
acceptable, even recommended procedure.

Perhaps it's because I am "untutored" that I can read the
words that are printed and understand for myself what
they say, rather than having the text "explained", and
thus being told what to think, by "excellent teachers".

That is roughly like being "self taught". IME, being self-taught is a fairly
difficult means of learning as compared to being taught by people who know
what they are doing. I've surely learned a great deal by both means, so my
opinion about the comparison is probably well-informed.

As far as the Bible goes, I have both formal education and am also
self-taught. That is also true of audio.