How much of the Bible have you read?

[Kurn]

Before I graduated from HS I labored through The Books once, cover to cover.
Just before my 20th birthday I experienced a conversion experience and after that over about a ten-year period I read through it 8 times cover-to-cover.
Nine times, plus. Nearly once in Spanish, to date. Maybe I'll get to ten-times total.

I have read KJV version more than twice. That helps you to use Strong's concordance which is one of the world's most awesome reference works.

After a decade of fervor things began to come loose. I knew and remembered more and more and I would notice new discoveries by biologists, geologists, archaeologists, cosmologists and so on, which ended up throwing into doubt any literalist reception of The Books.
Then several bouts with existentialists and other philosophers made me realize that my experience was MY experience. It is far from any Godly intention to impose Orthodoxy; or at least it is un-Godly to do so in the 3rd millenium. One might argue that during parts of the the rough and rougher Middle Ages that some form of authoritarian orthodoxy was desirable. But to say that it still does is to say that Biblical wisdom has had very little effect over the centuries. Rather blasphemous, don't you think?

My philosophical exposures were quite extensive but more recently I've been bringing in the sheaves of modern Biblical literary and textual analysis. Comparative religion as well. I have to say that the existential doubt and its exhortation to freedom and personal hermeneutics finds a corroboration in the honest appraisals that scholar/writers like Bart Ehrman and John Crossan have popularized. If you find out what the Bible's original shoes, original evolution, original context were like, you free yourself from the old-winebag emphases that are so popular nowadays.
I won't theologize any of this further. Many people have been this way before.

In answer to Elvin's question and questions like it: A person could write a book about what the Greek version says about gayness. Several have. There are textual dimensions: Analysing how the "original" documents came together. There are literary dimensions: Analysing what the form of each book means as well as that of phrases, metaphors, historical references, individual poems, etc.
There are the "higher" dimensions: Analysing the Books in the context of the times and occasions in which they were made. So what is the answer to Elvin's question? It's both a "simple" and a complicated question. You can easily spend a decade studying trying to answer it. Or you can just read the relevant passages and puzzle over it. Remember that these Books were in response to people's questions of their time and culture. My short reply is that the people of those days wouldn't understand a lot of what Modern people might talk about. The Biblical viewpoint is a historical reference point, not an answer for our time on some questions. So are we babes lost in the woods? I think if we just decide to wake up and treat each other as right as we know how that in some sense we have "fulfilled" the Biblical religions.
I am very seriously post-Christian, a practitioner of Buddhist meditation and not a hack about anything once you agree with me about everything [j/k].

 

[slobone]

I've read the Old Testament up through Psalms and I'm currently in the middle of a fairly detailed study of the New. I want to learn more about it as a fascinating and extremely important historical document. I'm not particularly religious but I do keep an open mind.

One thing I've learned already -- when you ask "do you believe it?" -- there is no "it". The Bible we have today was written over nearly a thousand years by many different people with varying agendas. If you want to show that it presents a unified, undeviating view about anything, you really have to engage in all kinds of contortions and ignore a lot of evidence that an objective scholar would consider conclusive.

To take the gospels for an example: with the possible exception of Mark, they were all pieced together from multiple earlier sources. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that any of the people who wrote them could have been witnesses to any of the events of Jesus' life.

Each of the evangelists had a different theological point he was trying to push, and modified the existing documents and oral traditions to emphasize that point.

There are also numerous contradictions among the gospels. Some of them pertain to fairly minor matters, such as the names of Joseph's ancestors or the exact day, relative to the beginning of Passover, that Jesus was crucified. Others have greater theological importance, such as who Jesus said he was and when he thought the kingdom of heaven was coming.

Then there's the whole question of, do we even have a reliable text to begin with? None of the manuscripts that have survived date from the same era that the books were written. They were copied by hand, laboriously, over many centuries. Inevitably mistakes were introduced. Not only that, but it certainly looks like some of the copyists added or removed passages if they didn't fit with what they thought people should believe.

On top of that, there's the problem of translation. The King James Version was based on a very late and unreliable manuscript. Since then scholars have labored mightily to produce a more authentic version, but they have the humility to admit that there are many passages we will never really get right. There seems to be a pretty good consensus that the New Revised Standard Version is the best available today.

 

[KennyD]

I grew up reading the Bible and taking Bible Study Courses from age Five thru Seventeen . I was ordained by two different church group / faiths . So; I've read the Bible (King James) from cover to cover . Prior to 1983 , you could name a Book, Chapter, and verse .. and I could have recited it to you word for word . However; after a terrible auto accident , I am lucky to be alive ... BUT; I lost much memory .
Anyway; I discovered a faith that I learned to think for myself and they welcome and accept Gays and Lesbians into their churches ... So, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible was written by Mortal Man thru "Divine Inspiration" ... Who's to say that these men writting the Bible did not throw in some of their own thoughts and ideas "Thinking" they were from God OR during translations put in their own ideas .... So, I do NOT believe all of it ..
I believe that the Old Testiment was written while we lived under the "LAW" of God ... the New Testiment being written when we were under the "Grace" of God .
Since I just do not know what to believe , myself ... I always preached and counseled people to take from the Bible whatever they could use in their life ... and .. to leave the rest .... since that is how I do it , myself ...
However; IF you've ever read the Phaliens' Beliefs ... But that is a whole different story ........

 

[The_Reaper]

Enough to be a smartass and hold my own in a debate about contradictions of religion.

I don't personally believe it, seeing as it was written by human beings who could add their own prejudices into it and claim it as "God's Law".

 

[slobone]

I have to say that the existential doubt and its exhortation to freedom and personal hermeneutics finds a corroboration in the honest appraisals that scholar/writers like Bart Ehrman and John Crossan have popularized.

Yes, I've recently read books by both these guys. Very informative. While they agree on the necessity for an objective historical approach, they disagree on how best to describe Jesus and his message. Ehrman calls him a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, while Crossan seems to think of him as more of a social reformer in the Gandhi/M. L. King mode.

If you find out what the Bible's original shoes, original evolution, original context were like, you free yourself from the old-winebag emphases that are so popular nowadays.

Good point. You have to at least start by asking, what did the Bible mean to the men who wrote it? No 21st century person can read it for himself and have much chance of discovering what it was originally intended to convey.

In fact, anybody who claims to be interpreting the Bible literally is lying. Every position on the religious spectrum relies on interpretations by post-biblical theologians, not just the actual text of the Bible. Even the fundamentalists "cheat" by employing non-literal interpretations when it suits them.

A very important for-instance is the apocalypse. It's quite clear that both Jesus and St. Paul (the two most important figures in the New Testament) believed that the end of the world was coming soon, in their own lifetimes.

But that doesn't suit the agenda of the fundamentalists, who therefore have to look for hidden clues and symbolic language in the text to "prove" that we're in the end times today. A claim, by the way, made by many other generations of believers in the past.

Clearly, all but one of the generations that claim "the end of the world is at hand" is going to be wrong! Since Jesus and St. Paul were wrong, obviously, why should we believe any of these other guys?

 

[slobone]

Click here to read an essay I wrote on the subject.

RL, thanks for posting that -- I read it with great interest. I've also seen similar discussions of this issue before.

But there's one thing I don't understand -- what's the advantage of even addressing the question of what St. Paul "really" believed? Is the implication that if you knew what that was, it would be the definitive truth because he said it?

Wouldn't it be better just to say, He was a human being just like the rest of us. He may have been wise about many things, but he wasn't infallible.

Otherwise, it seems to me, you're just battling the fundamentalists on their own turf. Where victory seems highly unlikely.

And anyway, Paul took a pretty extreme postion on sex of all kinds -- he was against it. He does reluctantly tell people, Oh all right, if you're absolutey burning with lust, you'd better get married. But he's not that crazy about sexual activity, even within a (heterosexual) marriage. So why should we feel like we need his support to argue for the legitimacy of gay relationships?

 

[slobone]

Hmm, is this the correct place to be posting this thread?

Eek! Mods -- please don't move this thread to the Religion forum -- most JUBbers never go there, and I think a lot of people are interested in this topic.

 

[mexamor]

I have read all of it a couple of times and yes I do believe it with the realization that it is not fully correct as it probably was originally written. Too many translations by too many scribes with political agendas.

 

[mexamor]

I do not believe in biblical inerrancy

 

[treanir]

I have read parts of it for assignments in college. Other than that, no, I have not read the Bible. I do plan to read it some time, even though I do not believe the events described in it.

 

[Rali_hates_Mondays]

I haven't read it no. For me it is just a useful historical source, written by humans end of. But I am going to read it one day...

 

[just_mills]

None.
Never have. Never will.
I set mine on fire, and watched it burn as it kept me warm on a winters day, along with many of my friends, back at Secondary School.
Thats the only use it's ever had for me.
I dont know one friend of mine that believes in Religion.
We've had many-a-discussion; and it always end up with the same thing

The war on terror just drags along,
My holy god it's growing strong,
It's propaganda shouts despair,
And sends this virus everywhere,
Religion is hate,
Religion is fear,
Religion is war.
Religion is rape,
Religion's obscene,
Religion's a whore.
There is no fucking Jesus Christ,
There never was a sacrifice,
No man upon the crucifix,
Beware the call for purity,
Infections their facility,
I've made my choice,
666.

 

[johnflagc]

.......yes I have read and reread the Bilble and each time gain new understanding and at the same time one has to go by faith on some readings........I believe the Bilble to be the inspired word of God so to me it is truth..........whatever one believes in is a personal matter and matter of choice as we are all given a free will to believe as we may.........

 

[tx_doc]

every single bit of it.
Went to a Christian school for the first 12 years of my life. My parents wanted me to become a preacher......
It's a nice story. Don't really believe it.

 

[sparky95]

I read it cover to cover many years ago. There are many good parts, some parts of great beauty, and some parts that deserve the shredder. Anyone who takes it all as literal truth, frankly, has rocks in their heads!

 

[alister9669]

I've read it many times. I was raised southern baptist, so it's almost a requirement. I don't think it's exactly an accurate historical source. I think it's personal views on history by many different people.

 

[smile86]

Actually physically read myself? Very little. A few verses for school Religious Studies exams and that's about it. Obviously i've heard more, been read bible stories in primary school, and i have a friend who writes John 3:16 out in all her Christmas cards every year without fail, bless her. But i've never been religious. To be honest i don't care, it doesn't matter to me. Besides i like my life as it is, religion would mean changing things.

It used to annoy me when Bible verses or prayers were read in school assemblies but that gradually dried up over the years i was there. Some evangelical Christians were banned from preaching at our school after parents complained, especially the parents of the large number of muslim children who attended the same school as me. I think they were quite right to complain, we didn't go to school to be converted.

 

[pjlikesporn]

I've read a good deal of it--if I had to estimate, I'd guess 80%. I went to religious elementary and prep schools. I don't read it so much these days, but I still read some of the shorter books when the mood strikes: Ruth, Esther, Job, Mark.

So many here seem to avoid it because of a distaste for religious fanatics, but it really can be a good read with exciting stories and a lot of wisdom. Don't let the crazies fool you into thinking you cannot read it without having your mind erased.

 

[RationalLunacy]

RL, thanks for posting that -- I read it with great interest. I've also seen similar discussions of this issue before.

But there's one thing I don't understand -- what's the advantage of even addressing the question of what St. Paul "really" believed? Is the implication that if you knew what that was, it would be the definitive truth because he said it?

Wouldn't it be better just to say, He was a human being just like the rest of us. He may have been wise about many things, but he wasn't infallible.

Otherwise, it seems to me, you're just battling the fundamentalists on their own turf. Where victory seems highly unlikely.

And anyway, Paul took a pretty extreme postion on sex of all kinds -- he was against it. He does reluctantly tell people, Oh all right, if you're absolutey burning with lust, you'd better get married. But he's not that crazy about sexual activity, even within a (heterosexual) marriage. So why should we feel like we need his support to argue for the legitimacy of gay relationships?

Well, here's the catch:

You know and I know that Paul was a fallible human being, but the vast majority of Christendom do not believe this. They believe that the English language mistranslation of the Bible is the infallible word of God, and since their preacher reads it every Sunday verbatim from his pulpit, it must be gospel.

Yes, I am battling the fundamentalists on their own turf (in my case, Jehovah's Witnesses, who are a terribly homophobic religion), but while I do not expect any segment of Christendom to change their doctrine towards homosexuality in my lifetime, there are individuals who are suffering behind the walls of their worship places, pummeling themselves with guilt and living in terror of destruction and condemnation by God because of who they are, as I once did. If my research (and that of Bible scholars much more learned than I) can help just one of these lost souls to come to terms with their sexuality by coming to an understanding of the true facts of what the Bible really says, then the fight on the fundamentalist turf is worth it.

You can't begin to imagine the amount of hate mail I get from "Christians". In fact, over the years, I've received three death threats from people claiming to be doing "the Lord's work".

 

[slobone]

Well, here's the catch:

You know and I know that Paul was a fallible human being, but the vast majority of Christendom do not believe this. They believe that the English language mistranslation of the Bible is the infallible word of God, and since their preacher reads it every Sunday verbatim from his pulpit, it must be gospel.

Yes, I am battling the fundamentalists on their own turf (in my case, Jehovah's Witnesses, who are a terribly homophobic religion), but while I do not expect any segment of Christendom to change their doctrine towards homosexuality in my lifetime, there are individuals who are suffering behind the walls of their worship places, pummeling themselves with guilt and living in terror of destruction and condemnation by God because of who they are, as I once did. If my research (and that of Bible scholars much more learned than I) can help just one of these lost souls to come to terms with their sexuality by coming to an understanding of the true facts of what the Bible really says, then the fight on the fundamentalist turf is worth it.

You can't begin to imagine the amount of hate mail I get from "Christians". In fact, over the years, I've received three death threats from people claiming to be doing "the Lord's work".

That's terrible, RL. Very scary in fact. You're a very courageous person -- I'm pretty sure I would have stopped after the -- second? death threat.

Yes, I see your point now. There are a lot of gullible and religion-whipped people out there, and we have to do what we can to help them.

It depresses and astonishes me how much crap the great American public will swallow. Literally more people believe in alien abductions than in evolution. I blame our educational system, but I guess it goes even deeper than that.

And in fact we frequently get letters over on the Coming Out forum from young guys who want to come out but who are scared of God's (and their family's, and their preacher's) wrath. It's very sad. I'm sure you've seen them too.