What is the most intellectually honest way to read the Bible

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-12-14 12:18pm

What is the most intellectually honest way to read the Bible?

Whether you are a Christian dealing with other Christians or non-Christians, or whether you are a non-Christian dealing with Christians or other non-Christians, what is the best way to read the Bible and not come out a liar on some level?

And does it make a difference whether or not one assumes the Bible to be canon for the purposes of the given argument?

It seems that the most intellectually honest way to read the Bible is literally, that way one can consistently deal with it whether one is arguing from a canon or non-canon POV. But this seems overly simplistic to me, and denies the literary aspects and history of the making of the Bible. Then again, interpretations can easily lend themselves to rationalizations.

So, if one were to take this stance: "I don't want to fool myself or anyone else about what the Bible says and stands for", what is best technique or approach to reading the Bible?

Or do the terms 'reading the Bible' and 'intellectually honest' not belong together in the same sentence?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-12-14 12:22pm

Intellectually honest?

If you accept the bible as being true on any level beyond the way Tom Clancy novels are true then you're a fucking moron and should have a restraining order taken out against you by the word intellectual.

Or to put it another way, there is no way to read anything into the bible that doesnt require some level of intellectual dishonesty. It is a fairy story...treating it as anything else is not an honest approach.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-12-14 12:33pm

The most intellectually honest way to read the Bible is to recognize that it's a collection of independently authored mythological stories from a particular culture which reflect the prejudices and beliefs of its various authors, because that's the truth.

As for trying to determine what the Bible "really says", that question in itself is intellectually dishonest. Once you recognize that it was written by a lot of different people who made little or no attempt to collaborate (even the Gospel writers couldn't keep Jesus' last words straight, for fuck's sake), you realize that it won't necessarily have consistent messages at all. So you can only look at pieces of the Bible and see what they are saying. The Bible as a whole says nothing; it contradicts itself up the wazoo.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2005-12-14 02:03pm

Look into Spinoza's method of biblical interpretation.
Interpretation of Scripture

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-12-14 02:31pm

Read the oxford bible commentary, it's unbiased (well, it's biased on accuracy, so fundies will say it's got an a priori anti supernatural bias, anti literalist bias etc), authoritative and accurate. They'll tell you the current views on intent and themes in the text, and hopefully the corresponding evidence to support those views (for instance with extrabiblical folklore from the same time period, archeological findings).

The idea is to read out of the text what was put in in the first place, to understand the history and the authors, not to read your own agenda into it.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-12-14 03:44pm

Start at Genesis 1:1 and read all the way through.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-14 05:49pm

Being intellectually honest about it isn't the same as accepting it as truth. You can try to understand what it really says and still believe that what it says is shit-headed.