The Bible is a peculiar book, and it's hard to get straight information about it. If you're one of those people with a nagging feeling that you should know more about the Bible than you do -- or even if you can recite chapter and verse (but don't know that those chapters and verses come from a 13th century archbishop of Canterbury and a 16th century Parisian, respectively) -- then these five basic things will catapult you to a new level of biblical literacy. Though I might be handing you clunky corrective eyewear instead of sexy kitten glasses, I promise that they will change the way you look at the Good Book, clarifying and focusing your understanding.
1. Every Bible is actually a collection of books. The word itself means something like "little library." Many of the Bible's books developed over a long period of time and include the input of a lot of people (ancient Israelites, Babylonian Jews and Greek pastors, to name a few), reflecting particular places (urban Jerusalem, the northern Galilee, rural Judah and ancient Persia, for example) and times (spanning as much as 1,000 years for the Old Testament and a couple of centuries for the New Testament). Plus, the collection as a whole developed over centuries. This helps to explain the tremendous variety of theological perspectives, literary style, and sometimes perplexing preoccupations (which animal parts go to which parties in which categories of sacrifices, e.g.), as well as why some texts disagree with others.
2. Not everyone who believes in it has the same Bible. There are actually different bibles, though they all started with Jews (but before Judaism, per se). The Christian bible includes and depends upon the Jewish bible -- the Protestant Christian Old Testament is composed of the same books as the Jewish Hebrew Bible, arranged in a different order; and non-Protestant Christians include a few more books and parts of books (which also originated in Jewish circles) in their Old Testaments. The books of the Christian New Testament reflect the process of Jesus' followers gradually distinguishing themselves from his religion, Judaism.
3. The Bible came after the literature it comprises. In other words, the material that became biblical wasn't written in order to be part of a Bible. This helps to explain the existence of a book of erotic love poetry (Song of Songs), one that doesn't mention God (Esther), another of intimate personal correspondence (Paul's letter to Philemon) and maybe why none of it was written by Jesus. The biblical texts are not disinterested reporting of objective facts but come from people of faith informed by particular beliefs.
4. If you're reading the Bible in English, you're reading a translation. With the exception of a small minority of Aramaic texts, the books of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible were all written in Hebrew. The books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Every translation is by nature interpretation. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you know that it's impossible to convert exactly and for all time the literature or speech of any given language into another. A translator has to make choices. There are often several ways to render the original text, and changes in English affect the meaning we read as well.
5. Finally, this information about the Bible is compatible with belief in it. A person can simultaneously accept these truths about the Bible and the Bible as the Word of God. Doing so may require recalibrating assumptions, though, to allow for the possibility that God patiently works through people and time, enjoys a good debate and prefers inviting conversation over issuing absolutes. (Even the Ten Commandments, which would seem to be as absolute as anything, show up in two places in the Bible -- and with some differences.)
The Bible's endurance is astonishing. It continues to instruct and to inspire (in all sorts of interpretations and ways) the millions of people for whom it is their sacred and authoritative text. And it continues to ignite the imagination and enrich the speech, literature and art of people outside of the biblical faiths, too. Knowing the few bits of information provided here, as plain and pedantic as they may seem, makes it possible to make sense of the Bible -- its uses and abuses -- for yourself. It's like having the kind of friend who you know will keep you straight, surprise and delight you and encourage you to keep becoming exactly you. This information is more than a starting point. It's also a companion along the way, enabling new insights, providing correctives, and allowing space for the dynamism of your own ideas and learning.
Kristin Swenson is the author of Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time (Harper, 2010; Harper Perennial, 2011) now available in paperback! She is an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Follow Kristin M. Swenson, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kristinswenson
Book Review: Michael Dirda reviews 'Bible Babel' by Kristin ...
Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All ...
How pitifully uninformed can these people be?
When I see the insanely ludicrous comments from posters such as "anon123" or "Word of life" declaring that god did not create evil or that god does not lie and that "free will" is a gift of god, I can only reply with this:
Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version):
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
and this:
1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
If god gives man free will, what is god doing subverting it by putting lies into the mouths of his prophets?
I am offended by such willful ignorance.
I find it odd that christians would take offense at ANY persecution as the xtian scripture admonishes xtians to "rejoice" and consider themselves "blessed" for doing so. Mathew 5:10-12
Also, consider 2 Corinthian 12:10
Don't take offense that we think you (xtians) are way out in left field - embrace it, love it...rejoice.
We have some idea of when the Jewish bible became standardised but the earliest text available on the issue is infact the Septuagint. For historical references the Septuagint was an effort by Hellenised Jews living in Ptolemy's Alexandria to gather all books pertinent to the Jewish religion and translate them into the lingua franca of the time (Koine Greek).
The project run for 2 centuries from the 3rd till the 1st century BC. Concurrently with that project Jews were revising (or selecting which books would make the canon, take your pick) Tanakh. Therefore between the two (Septuagint and Tanakh) there are differences.
The Septuagint is the authoritative resource that became the old Testament and the differences were carried and indeed embedded into Christianity.
http://gracefully.wordpress.com/rule-three-be-awesome-to-each-other/
The level of doublethink required to believe this collection of myths, fables, propaganda, and mixed moral messages is somehow the inspired word of God is incredible.
Remember the movie, "Contact," starring Jodie Foster? During the one scene where she was questioned by a panel prior to choosing an occupant for the device, the Palmer Joss character said, "95% of humanity believes in a God. Why would we choose someone who thinks that 95% of the human race is delusional?"
Foster stammered at a response and was ultimately not chosen. Had it been me, I'd have replied differently:
"Correction. 95% of humanity believes in one of at least 400 different Gods. And their beliefs aren't delusional, they're conditioned - based on the environment and upbringing of each individual. But 100% of humanity believes in math, the language with which we were communicated. Would you rather have an occupant representing one-four-hundredth of humanity based on a communication that was not religious - or would you rather have an occupant that represents 100% of humanity based on a communication that was mathematical?"
True belief must say that only our Maker can do anything for us.
You wrote "True belief must say that only our Maker can do anything for us."
That one philosophy, by itself, is the thing most monarchs and tyrants would love their subjects to believe. In Jewish history, the Jews were enslaved by Egypt and by Rome. In both cases, rather than do anything about it themselves, they placed their faith in the belief that a "deliverer" or "messiah" would come to solve their problem. Hindsight is a bugger - but frankly, I think they'd have suffered far less subjugation if they'd gotten off their hind ends and DONE something about their situation rather than wait for someone else (or God) to do it for them.
BTW, speaking of the "baseless belief in evolution," one point. If you read Darwin's "Origins of the Species," you'll find at least two passages in it that counsel students to NOT take his theories for granted - that they were just theories and open to question or revision. On the other hand, I don't recall any part of the Bible that refers to its teachings as "theoretical." In short, Darwin implied, "Think first, and believe what you will," while the Bible suggests, "Don't think, just believe."
This is what I call either the Argument from Consensus, or the Argument from Statistics: because a majority believe something necessarily makes it true. Obviously, nonsense.
Arguments from consensus or arguments from statistics may be nonsensical. But in the example I gave, THEY (the panel of questioners) invoked it first (grin). My response to such a panel would be to give them as much nonsense as they were willing to dish out. However, you could also say one more thing. The Palmer Joss character was a spirutual man, not a scientist. And he attempted to use a statistical argument to trip Jodie Foster up. So, it would be only logical to refute a statistical argument with another statistical argument.
To tell you the truth, I was surprised at their decision to use "religion" as a basis for choosing an occupant. How could one person, obviously raised in a Judeo-Christian country with Judeo-Christian ethics, hope to represent "fairly" the other 400 religions to any alien race? Bias from the get-go.
See, I would've thought that was a done deal....
You can't do a DNA test and tell who is Jew and who is not. The Israelites (and original jews) were scattered among many places and their DNA diluted in each country that they settled in. Remnants of the original Israelites are most likely to be found in Palestine. The DNA results you speak of compared Jewish DNA to that of people in Palestine for that reason.
Throughout the record it is strongly evident that Mordecai both accepted and obeyed the law of Jehovah. He refused to bow down to honor a man who probably was an Amalekite; God had marked the Amalekites for extermination. (Esther 3:1, 5; Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 15:3) Mordecai’s expression at Esther 4:14 indicates that he expected deliverance from Jehovah and that he had faith in divine direction of the entire course of events. Esther’s fasting, together with similar action by the other Jews, for three days before she went in to the king shows reliance on God. (Esther 4:16)
Many facts establish the record as authentic and factual. Space here does not allow me to mention more.
you got that right, a slaughter, including women and children!
American King James Version
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.