The "Good Book" thread - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

martinguerre · 10-13-2005, 07:15 PM

hard to say where the schism begins exactly. The formal separation really starts to become an issue around 1000 CE. But the East always had some differences from the Western church. I'm not a scholar of Eastern Orthodoxy, but what i do know wouldn't point to their acceptance of texts such as Gospel of Mary. The differences are more around the Creeds, which are formulated in the 3rd/4th century...different theologies of incarnation and Trinity, but as far as i know, no major differences in consideration of gender. Again, i'll put this on the to be checked once back from vacation list. These are good questions, but they're starting to get beyond my off the cuff knowledge.

SERPENT7 · 10-27-2005, 01:38 PM

amonkie,
"each man is ultimately left to make his own individual interpretation of God as he sees fit. The possibility of this happening then raises the debate of whether this undermine's God's status as supreme and eternal."

It does raise the debate, but not very far.
People making informed choices about thier own spirituality undermines the authority of institutional religions, but i do not think GOD is to be found there anyway and see this as the next step in human social evolution.

martinguerre · 10-27-2005, 11:43 PM

okay...back from vaction, and the thread is bumped. let's take a look at the book shelf.

For Old Testament. It's hard to go wrong with J. Collin's "Hebrew Bible"

It's a touch pricy, but it's one of the premier texts at the moment, and is up to speed on issues of social theory and recent textual discoveries. L. Boadt's "Reading the Old Testament" is a touch older and thus cheaper, but in terms of backgrounding will serve quite well.

NT is a little tougher to do-there's less material devoted to the NT as a corpus. people take on the Pauline letters, or Revelations, or a Gospel or three. I've used C. Roetzel's "World that Shaped the New Testament" but it's best as a intro text, and doesn't really help read along with the material. "Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context" by the same is a good intro to Paul, maybe a touch dated by now, but classic and careful.

For addressing the Gospels...it's hard to say. I can't in good faith reccomend anything by Crossen, even though it's the most aimed at a popular audience. I've heard good things about R. Brown's "Introduction to the NT." Otherwise, the slightly dated "Synoptic Gospels" by K. Nickle will get you through the first three...

B. Metzger has a book called "New Testament Canon", which should go through most of the issues i talk about here about making writings scripture. I haven't read it myself, but he's a good and accessible author, and i trust his work even if it's more conservative than my own.

that's probably a pretty decent start. i'll swing by the campus bookstore tomorrow...this survey has led me to think that my own collection needs some additions. book addiction, the sad symptom of graduate school.

Spiker439 · 10-28-2005, 10:48 PM

I'm not sure any of the analysis of the texts in this thread has really touched upon the root of the issue here. It's not what words may have been translated wrong, or right, and why, and from what language, and when, and what was ommitted - these are all very interesting questions which I'm really not equipped to answer through my intellectual background as an atheist. Hell I've only read the bible once. I think that "Christians" and "Catholics" and "Jehovas Witnesses", etc, have different views on what should be in the bible, but even within some of those traditions, especially Christianity, there are so many different interpretations of the SAME text that it becomes a personal interpretation at the end of the day, and not an objective one (If such a thing even exists). Even if you grant that this was God's word at one point (Which must be taken on faith, I might add), and even granted that it hasn't been changed much over the centuries, two people look at the same passage and get something completely different out of it. Hermaneutics is very interesting, especially when applied to the bible. I think what this proves is that, even given all these things, you've still got to make your mind up for yourself, given that there are so many possible literal and figurative/metaphorical interpretations. And so... Good luck

10-13-2005, 07:15 PM	#41 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	hard to say where the schism begins exactly. The formal separation really starts to become an issue around 1000 CE. But the East always had some differences from the Western church. I'm not a scholar of Eastern Orthodoxy, but what i do know wouldn't point to their acceptance of texts such as Gospel of Mary. The differences are more around the Creeds, which are formulated in the 3rd/4th century...different theologies of incarnation and Trinity, but as far as i know, no major differences in consideration of gender. Again, i'll put this on the to be checked once back from vacation list. These are good questions, but they're starting to get beyond my off the cuff knowledge. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

10-27-2005, 11:43 PM	#43 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	okay...back from vaction, and the thread is bumped. let's take a look at the book shelf. For Old Testament. It's hard to go wrong with J. Collin's "Hebrew Bible" It's a touch pricy, but it's one of the premier texts at the moment, and is up to speed on issues of social theory and recent textual discoveries. L. Boadt's "Reading the Old Testament" is a touch older and thus cheaper, but in terms of backgrounding will serve quite well. NT is a little tougher to do-there's less material devoted to the NT as a corpus. people take on the Pauline letters, or Revelations, or a Gospel or three. I've used C. Roetzel's "World that Shaped the New Testament" but it's best as a intro text, and doesn't really help read along with the material. "Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context" by the same is a good intro to Paul, maybe a touch dated by now, but classic and careful. For addressing the Gospels...it's hard to say. I can't in good faith reccomend anything by Crossen, even though it's the most aimed at a popular audience. I've heard good things about R. Brown's "Introduction to the NT." Otherwise, the slightly dated "Synoptic Gospels" by K. Nickle will get you through the first three... B. Metzger has a book called "New Testament Canon", which should go through most of the issues i talk about here about making writings scripture. I haven't read it myself, but he's a good and accessible author, and i trust his work even if it's more conservative than my own. that's probably a pretty decent start. i'll swing by the campus bookstore tomorrow...this survey has led me to think that my own collection needs some additions. book addiction, the sad symptom of graduate school. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

10-27-2005, 01:38 PM	#42 (permalink)
SERPENT7 Crazy Location: Gold country!	amonkie, "each man is ultimately left to make his own individual interpretation of God as he sees fit. The possibility of this happening then raises the debate of whether this undermine's God's status as supreme and eternal." It does raise the debate, but not very far. People making informed choices about thier own spirituality undermines the authority of institutional religions, but i do not think GOD is to be found there anyway and see this as the next step in human social evolution.

10-28-2005, 10:48 PM	#44 (permalink)
Spiker439 Upright	I'm not sure any of the analysis of the texts in this thread has really touched upon the root of the issue here. It's not what words may have been translated wrong, or right, and why, and from what language, and when, and what was ommitted - these are all very interesting questions which I'm really not equipped to answer through my intellectual background as an atheist. Hell I've only read the bible once. I think that "Christians" and "Catholics" and "Jehovas Witnesses", etc, have different views on what should be in the bible, but even within some of those traditions, especially Christianity, there are so many different interpretations of the SAME text that it becomes a personal interpretation at the end of the day, and not an objective one (If such a thing even exists). Even if you grant that this was God's word at one point (Which must be taken on faith, I might add), and even granted that it hasn't been changed much over the centuries, two people look at the same passage and get something completely different out of it. Hermaneutics is very interesting, especially when applied to the bible. I think what this proves is that, even given all these things, you've still got to make your mind up for yourself, given that there are so many possible literal and figurative/metaphorical interpretations. And so... Good luck