Mantus

A CNN article got me thinking...

There are some very nice Jehovah's Witnesses in town and every time I say hello as I pass by their little booth they try to push their literature on me. Not the Bible, not even excerpts from the Bible, as one would expect but propaganda pamphlets filled with such trash that even one as poorly educated on scripture as myself sees the obvious flaws. These pamphlets cover everything from evolution, vampires, end of the world to dealing with cancer and pretty much anything that one would often see on the news. All these topics are poorly mashed together with scripture in an attempt to make the Bible relevant for today's world.

I'm a curious man, so now and then, I talk to these people about their faith. It quickly struck me that 99% of what they discuss comes directly from these pamphlets and magazines. They are brain washed and know as much if not less about their own scripture than a heathen soul such as myself. At the same time they keep themselves insulated from the world of science and history. They are in intellectual purgatory!


Actually, that's not in the Bible – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Cynthetiq

An excellent article that points to the many flaws of those that hold something dear but don't understand or haven't read the source material.

I find this is common error for any kind of "quoted" material, not just books, but movies, tv shows, and speeches.

When I was actually in bible studies, I used to like when the JWs would talk to me about such things and I'd quote actual verse to counter their statements and ask them where they got their quotes from. Most were like the article mentions, they did not know, did not understand what they were reading, or even what they did get was from no biblical scholar but someone who was equally ignorant.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

levite

Man, it's about time someone pointed this out.

I have to correct my students all the time about what they think is in the Bible and what isn't. If I'm lucky, it's only to correct them that something they quote as Biblical actually comes from Christian scriptures, which Jews of course do not count as Biblical scripture, or from later Christian thought, which again we don't accept theologically; but usually, it's just something bizarre that somehow they got into their heads was from the Bible.

I had a high school student who swore up and down to me that democracy came from the Bible. And I had an adult student (for a conversion class) that legitimately thought that it was prohibited by the Bible for Jews to eat soy bacon or vegetarian chicken with cheese, because not only can we not eat nonkosher foods, "we can't eat anything that resembles them!" (Untrue, and weird.)

Not to mention, of course, the legions of students who are convinced that the Bible prohibits masturbation (it doesn't), or sex before marriage (it doesn't), or suchlike....

After college, when I was very poor, and had no budget for entertainment, I used to entertain myself by going over to the main street of the town, where lots of missionaries hung out, and I would debate them, and find the errors in their scholarship, or the holes in their theology. I remember with some amusement once causing great dismay to a couple of young Jehovah's Witnesses by explaining to them how the name "Jehovah" is a misnomer-- a total error-- caused by Latin translators and German academics misunderstanding the Hebrew name, for which the pronunciation was lost long before the end of the Second Temple period....

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Willravel

To be fair, religious texts such as the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are quite long and intricate. I've studied them for many years, and even with the benefit of not being in the religions (which means I come at all of them from the same perspective), and I'm still only a novice. While I can understand panties getting tied in knots over silly things like democracy or capitalism in the Bible, there are mistakes even highly educated people make.

And really, for many people there's no difference between getting their information from the original text and a pamphlet. It's all appeal to authority. Even if something is in the Bible, that doesn't necessarily make it true, case in point the stationary earth theory from Job chapter 38.

Mathilda

While "Spare the rod spoil the child" isn't in the bible in those words, what is, isn't that different and imo at least as disturbing.

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

Xazy

Great article.

I tend to make up on quote from the bible "thou shalt cover thy ass" surprisingly some people actually think that is a real quote.

The one other thing that is rarely discussed is that today's bible is not even a translation from Hebrew the original language to English, but a translation of a translation.

__________________
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

levite

It's all part and parcel of the same problem. Seems like a lot of folks don't even read the entire Tanakh (Bible) let alone learn how to read and interpret it properly. I can't speak for the Christian Scriptures or the Quran, of course, but the Tanakh, at least, wasn't designed to be read in a vacuum. It was designed to be read as part of an integrated oral corpus of traditional understandings; and barring instruction in doing so, reading it on its own is like reading every third line of "Hamlet" and then wondering why the play makes so little sense.

It's shocking to me not only how many people forget that they are reading a work that was composed in another language (one very, very different from English) over the course of a thousand years, incorporating numerous different viewpoints-- all generally different from the modern, Euro-American viewpoints; but who simply don't realize that things which we take for granted in other kinds of literature are also present in the Scriptures: metaphor, simile, hyperbole, idiom, allusion, allegory, poetic imagery, puns, and all the things we would expect from the great works. Somehow, many people think that those kinds of literary devices are somehow "below" the Bible. But there is nothing lowly about them: they make for great literature, and the Bible uses them freely. Not only are they often misread and overlooked, but often, as Xazy alluded to, they are not even translated properly, and then those translations are themselves retranslated and recast for modern readers.

It's a morass.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Daniel_

I am guilty of saying "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke -- as it says in the bible".

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

levite

Awesome!

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Willravel

Let me put it this way: of all the people I know IRL or in cyberspace, you're probably the most knowledgeable when it comes to all things Judaism, particularly your holy texts. You dedicated years of intense study at institutions of higher learning. You're even a teacher! Isn't it true that there's a lot about your religious texts that you don't know? While you may not be guilty of the kind of slip of spoken about in the OP, like thinking there's some Biblical edict about vaguely erotic vampire fiction, but certainly, even with your truly impressive knowledge, there are still things you have yet to learn or discover, yes? And really, is it fair to expect everyone to get a PhD level education on their religion?

I was a Christian for approximately 14 years and I studied my ass off, and I've studied even more after my de-conversion, but there's still much I don't know about Christianity, it's history, the earlier translations, different theories from different experts. It could take me ten lifetimes to know it all. I know next to nothing about Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Druidism, etc. relative to your average person in that religion.

My long-winded point is maybe you've set the bar too high. Maybe even basic knowledge is sitting the bar too high. Sure, say "That's not actually in the Bible/Torah/Qur'an/etc." when people speak in err, but you're talking about your average person, here, and your average person doesn't take his or her religion seriously. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but for most people religion is a back burner kinda thing, an Easter and Christmas (or Chanukkah and Pesach) belief system. They care because their parents pretended to care going back generations.

Sheepy

I don't know much, but from what i understand is that with the general people there is also a general message in The Bible. The most dominating are those to do with poverty, justice, grace faith but mostly love! - Corinthians 13.



simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication!

levite

Of course there's stuff I don't know yet, Will. There will always be stuff I don't know, no matter how hard I study.

But I'm not saying that everyone should have a rabbi's detailed knowledge of the nuance of certain texts, or how to use them to construct arguments in Jewish Law; nor that they should have a PhD's knowledge of the history and deconstruction of the texts, and how to identify from structure and grammar when a piece dates from, and what the theological agenda at that time were.

And if people don't care about their religion, fine. That's their business. But it seems like there are a lot of people walking around who have read only bits and pieces, and either they think that means that they know everything they need to know about the Bible, or they know they don't and they think they should, so they pretend to have a level of knowledge that they don't actually have.

What I am saying is that people who haven't read the Bible, and/or who have not received some basic critical instruction in how it's supposed to be read and understood-- by one's own religion, at least, if not by others that supposedly share parts of the same texts-- should not presume that they know what's in the Bible, or that they know anything about it, and should not represent themselves as such.

For example, I have read the Quran a little. I read it all through a couple of times, in different translations. All that means is that I have a vague idea about what the Quran is about, and a very basic familiarity with Islam. I don't know Arabic: I haven't read it in the original. I have received no real guidance from any trained Muslim scholar. I haven't read any significant portion of the Hadith, or any supporting works of Muslim theology of text, or even any of the responsa literature of Sharia. Strictly speaking, I know jack about the Quran, and relatively little about Islam, and I will be the first person to say so. If I were to (as I'd like to do) take a course, or a little private instruction from a Muslim scholar, then I might feel comfortable saying I had a little basic knowledge of the Quran and Islam.

All I'm saying is that if one has basic knowledge, then one should recognize that that's what one has. And if one has no knowledge, one should acknowledge that that's what one has.

If one cares about religion/the Bible, then take a course or two. If one doesn't, fine, but one shouldn't kid oneself or anyone else about one's knowledge.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Daniel_

Well if it's not there, it bloody well should be!

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Ourcrazymodern?

My host-mum used to waste their time telling them they were stupid. At the time I never knew she was so smart, nor that she had such an excellent sense of humor.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Shadowex3

This is what happens when people go reading the Talmud without any context or background. They get to something like Marit Ayin and somewhere in six pages of rabbinical argument and thought exercises they somehow come to the conclusion that it's divine law.

__________________

levite

You...just rocked my world!

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Ourcrazymodern?

Thou shalt not talk about your naughty bits in public.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Shadowex3

I've met a LOT of people who were messianic or gentiles that were self proclaimed "noahides" trying to convert that have the exact same misconceptions you mentioned, and even more, because they try to jump straight to torah and talmud study and just get their head broke. I think the wierdest stuff comes from anyone dicking with the kabbalah that starts thinking it's as "official" as the torah.

__________________

levite

You don't really have to be 40 to study Kabbalah, but it really isn't for beginners. You have to really be able to understand when and where to apply Kabbalistic knowledge, and to get that what is at the most mystical levels of understanding isn't always something that can be brought up into the light for everyday uses. I always teach that there is a pyramid of knowledge that must be built up: first Torah knowledge, along with knowledge of the commentaries; then liturgy (history, text, and practice); then Talmud and the skills of Rabbinic thought; then halakhah (practical law) and aggadah (exegetical parable); then legal theory and various philosophies (mussar [moralistic homiletics), Hasidut [ecstatic semi-mystical theology], and modern Jewish thought); and only when one has achieved a certain level of competence with all those things, Kabbalah.

Failure to understand context is, IMO, responsible for many, if not most, causal errors in understanding and interpretation when it comes to sacred text and theology.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Ourcrazymodern?

Accepting revealed truth requires failing to understand its context. No text is sacred, but that's not in the Bible, either. OMG! I capitalized Bible. One might as well be a Mormon... I hope you're not implying, levite, that whatever truths there are in the writings don't have to be extrapolated & therefore don't become different for all?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

levite

That depends very much on how one defines "revealed truth." If you mean fundamentalist literalism, then yes, you're right. But since most religious people are not fundamentalist literalists, then no, I'm not sure it is true.

Although what I was referring to was the context of the writings within the tradition, history, and culture (both social and literary) that produced them.

No single text is universally understood as inherently sacred, perhaps. But texts can be and are sacred to their adherents. You may not find the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) to be holy: fine, that is surely your prerogative, and nobody would have any business trying to change your mind. But those texts are sacred to the Jewish people, and to us they certainly are understood to have an inherent holiness. Of course, Judaism also teaches that Jewish sacred text was meant only for us: it is not relevant to non-Jews, whom we presume to have their own ways of interacting with God and passing on holy teachings (which, in turn, are not relevant to us).

All text has to be interpreted. But what I am talking about is the difference between (1) How did the authors of the text and their redactor successors understand the text, (2) How does the culture which produced the text understand the text, and (3) How can any casual reader of the text from outside its original cultural context interpret it and find meaning in it.

For example, let's say with the plays of Shakespeare: one can reasonably speculate on the kinds of meanings Shakespeare was likely to have imagined when he wrote "Hamlet." In doing so, one can readily defend a comparatively wide range of possible meanings, as it is an exceedingly complex play. And one can also consider how British (and to an extent, American) directors, actors, and audiences have interpreted the play, and what kinds of meanings they have decided to adapt into it. And while one is free to assign any meaning one likes to a play, one would be very hard pressed to make a case that, say, Shakespeare and his players at the Globe intended that "Hamlet" be a strong statement on gun control and the consequences of abusing the Second Amendment. If that's how one wants to read "Hamlet," that's surely one's right, and no one should take that right away; but such a reading, though interesting, is simply insupportable in the contexts both of the play's author's likely ideas and motivations, and in the predominate traditions of interpretation of the play.

There is a Rabbinic teaching about interpreting Torah: hafokh ba v'hafokh ba, ki d'kula ba; "Examine and re-examine it, for everything can be found within it." In other words, Rabbinic tradition presumes that the Torah is capable of infinite levels of meaning. Yet even so, there are meanings that, practically, we teach that the text will not support, and it is not permissible in Judaism to make those textual arguments. If one makes them, fine, that may be a way to interpret the text, but it is no longer Jewish.

Christians do this all the time: most of how they interpret the "Old Testament" is counter to what Judaism says one can do with the text. But Jews generally have no problem with Christians doing this, so long as they are clear that they are Christians, interpreting the texts Christologically. The only problem comes when the Christians claim supercessionary rights of interpretation, and tell us that our readings and parameters are wrong, and theirs are the "true" Jewish readings, because they are now the "real" Children of Israel.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Ourcrazymodern?

Color me blushing, except! I don't know how, & your use of "they" also differs from mine. I try not to use that word, but think IJUHP, & try to figure out how others reckon they're so much different. If I take multiple liberties with my interpretations, I strongly suspect others do the same. Being absolutely sure is not one of my wonts. According to Herbert W. Armstrong, I might be descended from one of the lost tribes, except that that migration came from the south & east, &???

"Sacred" "holiness" is way, way a matter of opinion. Groupthink trips us up more effectively than thinking as individuals. Maybe the story of The Tower of Babel was one of God's brighter ideas which hasn't yet been interpreted well? Maybe not.

Co-opting the "OT" to continue/engender new traditions strikes me as no more silly than some of the other editing our species attempts every day, as agreements are reached, only to be abandoned as quickly. The Quran (sp?) is the Bible is the Torah, expanded, & they're all bastardizations of life, rarely as poetic as Shakespeare.

I stand by & for our mutual happiness.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

JamesD

"God helps those who help themselves" is a famous Ben Franklin line, a pithy way of observing that prayer plus hard work tends to produce better results than prayer alone.

Given that he was poking fun at overly religous types, I'm sure he'd be highly amused to learn that some people now think it's from the Bible.

Ourcrazymodern?

Looking at a sparkly mineral,
entrancement has its charms which aren't amusing.
God does help those who help each other.

So much, extrapolated,
from the sacred texts to which we cling,
tend to disserve us, wildly.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT