You're invited to check out the public beta of the all-new version of Big Think!
FAITH & BELIEFS
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
How should the Bible be interpreted?
  • Currently 0.0
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2

(0)
Big Thinker
Uploaded on 12/30/2007
It's been the most widely read and the most widely contested book on the planet. Now, after so many wars fought and heretics rotisseried over its words, we want to know. How should the Bible be interpreted?
13
3
3
Responses
SORT BY
Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?

The Bible was written and compiled by people.  It is a collection of the authors' interpretations of their observations and life experiences.  Later portions of the Bible are influenced by thought processes and interpretations expressed in earlier portions.  In other words, the Bible contains evidence of its own evolution.

Basically, the Bible is a statement of collective common sense - this is, "This is what we have observed as the best way to survive and ensure survival of the next generation."  The idea that millions of life experiences over thousands of years form the basis for these collective expressions should make the reader take them seriously.  The reader must then apply his or her interpretation of the collective common sense to his or her individual life situation.

This application can be meaningful only if uncoerced by either civil or ecclesiastical authority.  Coercion negates any positive inluence that the Biblical expressions of collective common sense might otherwise have on the reader.  Coercion only serves to reinforce the economic power sought by those seeking to coerce over the targets of such coercion.

 

0
0
Re: How should the Bible be interpreted?
The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people who consider themselves Jewish have never read most of the Old Testament, the vast majority of Christians have never read most of the New Testament, and the vast majority of Muslims have never read most of the Qur'an. The problem is not that people interpret their "holy books" incorrectly. The problem is that people accept other people's interpretation of those books instead of reading them and finding their own. Those who blindly follow an interpretation of a "holy book" they haven't read in its entirety and do not fully understand can be convinced to believe in dogmas which clearly run counter to their religion's founding doctrines. This is what we should be afraid of, not fundamentalism.
2
1
Biblical interpretation......
The true origins of Christianity are heavily obscured. History remains unconvinced exactly what 'revelation' was passed on by Jesus two thousand years ago. Thus do three competing monotheisms exist and growing secularisation. Popular fiction like the DaVinci Code thrives in the confusion of an early church divided in disagreement, until Constantine, a forth century secular emperor laid the institutional foundations for a church by forcing a ‘theological’ settlement on rival factions in return for a bankroll. The rest of Christian history has been built upon the decision to enforce scriptural uniformity by agreeing ‘canonical’ texts, known as the Bible or New Testament, and the theological development of that collection into the doctrines, dogma and numerous traditions known today. Therefore the claims and very existence of the ‘church’ rests upon the efficacy of theology as a valid human intellectual endeavour?Theology
2
0
PAGE
1