Does the Bible need to be trimmed by liberal Christians?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Given the definition of a 'fundamentalist Christian' as someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, and that it is a basis for their life, and the problems that we all (I think) here on DU can see in that (acceptance of slavery, the death penalty for homosexuality, etc.), should liberal churches remove a few books from the Bible and declare them as individual writings of purely scholarly interest?

As far as I can tell, this has happened in a way already, with the Apocrypha. The 'standard' protestant Bible is 39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament books, but Catholic and Orthodox bibles add some from the Apocrypha.

Is it time for a church to reject some of the problem books, such as Leviticus or some or all of Paul's epistles? This would be a clear message to fundamentalists that liberal churches think they are following un-Christian ideas. Or has this already happened with any churches?

[msongs]

1. bible "books" purged, supporters exterminated over the years as

power struggles have occured. it is the christian way to murder opposition so you can be the final decider of what is in or out of the bible. the historical record is not very pretty, but most christians have little awareness of the history behind the evolution of their religion (or intelligent design if you prefer).

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[melnjones]

2. Absolutely not.

We need more good Bible scholars to talk about what the intended meanings were and to look at the Bible as a WHOLE. I'm dedicating the next 5 years and thousands of dollars in student loans to study the Bible. I believe in it, I believe it is just as it should be, and I don't think its intended meanings were to promote slavery, damn homosexuals, etc. It has to be seen in it's original historical and cultural context, in the original languages, and in light of the whole of all the scripture in the Bible. (When it is used to condemn people, it is being taken out of context!!!) I will most likely get slammed for saying all this, but oh well.

[NAO]

12. I would like to endow a scholarship to study the true meaning of Numbers 31

Numbers 31:17-18 is an especially meaningful passage. One must read it in context to get the correct interpretation of the passage. So rather than quote the isolated verses, I will quote the entire passage.

The isolated verses: (17, 18)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now the entire passage:

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
16 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
17 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
18 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.

Now that makes a lot more sense! First, they slew all the kings with the sword, THEN they took the children and the animals as spoils of war, THEN Moses got wind that they had not performed an adequate genocide against the women. For this, God sent a plage on the people on his beloved chosen people.

At verse 16 Moses helps clarify the LORD's commands: kill all the mothers and little boys, but keep the VIRGINS for yourselves as war booty!

Now verse 17 and 18 really tie it all together. You see, genocide is OK with the LORD as long as you wash your cloths and your wooden tools afterwords! whew!

[melnjones]

15. Excellent response...

I'm gonna wait to respond until I do a little bit of research because I want to make sure I have some facts straight first. But I want to mention something quickly here that I very much believe- not all parts of the Bible are equal. I will explain that when I respond later!

[Finder]

37. It is a fascinating study really...

meaning the study in the original languages and context. May I ask where you plan to attend University?

[TomInTib]

3. They are about to publish a "One Hour" Bible.....

I heard someone (NPR?) talking about this recently.

They want it more accessible in its entirety.
As someone who was raised in a very Bible-oriented environment I find this really strange.

Just think about it- Genesis to Armageddon in one hour.

[drb]

4. Not necessary, and would start a firestorm. The problem...

...is not that there's too much stuff there; the problem is that no one does what Jesus told them to do.

It's that simple.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. But the problem is that the Bible doesn't say what Jesus said about

homosexuality. I don't think it's simple at all - is your attitude "anything goes, as long as there's not a prohibition in the gospels"? Or "do what the Old Testament says, except where the New Testament explicitly overrides it"? Or something else? And if you think the idea is to do what Jesus told you, then surely the whole Old Testament can be jettisoned, and all the News Testament after the gospels downgraded to religious commentary?

[drb]

11. The whole Bible centers around Jesus....

....as the personification of God's age-old desire to heal the rift between Himself and man.

The Old Testament was the Old Deal; the New Testament is the New Deal. Not to say that the OT is wrong, but I don't hear even Fred Phelps or D. James Pharisee calling for, per Leviticus, an inspection of men's testicles to make sure that no one with damaged testicles gets into the church.

Here's my suggestion. Start with the Sermon on the Mount. Once you get all the stuff that Jesus actually said himself down pat, then you can start worrying about the rest of the NT.

Me? I'm still working on it... with quite a way to go.

[StatsBabe]

5. About those "added" books ...

Catholic and Orthodox bibles didn't "add" books from the Apocrypha. The Protestant bibles left them out. Editing was in full force by Protestants from the beginning.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. OK, I did realise that

I just meant there are more than the number I gave (which was what I learnt as a child) in the Catholic and Orthodox versions (and I said 'add' rather than 'added' - I hope you can see how I could mean that, especially with my remark "this has already happened").

[papau]

8. correct - not all books that Luther did not like were tossed - but

many were


Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

[melnjones]

16. Editing was in force by everyone the whole time...

There were many many books that didn't end up in the current Bible that were tossed out way before the Protestant reformation. It's unfair to say Protestants "edited" and Catholics didn't. Editing is not the best word to use anyway. The canonization process was pretty lengthy and much more complex than simply throwing out books people didn't like. There are books in our Bible that were controversial in "making it in" for various reasons.

[comradebillyboy]

9. why? even the catholic church

admits big hunks, such as revelations, are fairy tales. We athiests recognize that the whole shebang is a fairy tale.

the catholic church recently stated that some portions of the new testament were not historically or doctrinally accurate. they rejected the inerrancy of the old testament in the 19th century.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I knew that they had clearly stated the early bits of the OT were allegory

and not to be taken literally, but I hadn't heard they'd said anything about the NT. Do you know which bits, apart from Revelation (not surprised at that, it reads like a bad acid trip)?

Why? Because I think it would be a visible way of saying "we don't believe these bits to be 'The Truth', so we're taking them out of the important book". Keeping dubious stuff in the same place as what they say is the 'real message' adds legitimacy to it.

[jonnyblitz]

13. I believe they already " trim" it. they seem to ignore all the bad

in it like it wasn't there. otherwise how else could they stomach it and still be liberal? so i believe they "trim" it already, in a sense.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I agree with Jonny.

It has already been trimmed.

The real question is whether they will go one step further and reject the "problem books" for the record.

This might cause the fundamentalists' heads to collectively explode and may reveal their agenda to those of us who aren't already terrified of it.

Good question, Muriel.

[Lethe]

17. you can start with this....the Thomas Jefferson Abridged Bible

this is the bible Jefferson abridged himself.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807077143/qid=1130701312/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-5465536-6331239?v=glance&s=books

In 1794, President Thomas Jefferson set out to uncover the essence of true religion from the Gospels by extracting Jesus' message of absolute love and service from the annunciation, virgin birth, and even the resurrection. Completed in 1819, this little book is the result of Jefferson's efforts.

"Gives us a preaching Jesus of distinctly human dimensions, without miracles or resurrection fascinating document, telling us a great deal about a great eighteenth century mind and its world."
-Charles S. Adams, Religious Studies Review

[saltpoint]

18. I'd like to see liberal Democratic Christians convene a summit

to re-work the Bible. Heavy editing of the oppressive passages of both Testaments and add significant numbers of other canonized texts, including many secular texts, poems, and so forth.

I'd like Bill Moyers to preside over the Executive Committee and for the sake of argument, I'd like it to be held next summer in say, Colorado Springs, right under the nose of the insane Jim Dobson.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Can you just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

I'm afraid re-working the Bible might only be a band-aid in this case.

We need to re-work our understanding of the book, and of our faiths and of how they are affected by history and tradition that has been pretty unfair to women.

I'd love to see more gender-neutral language, for instance. And more education about the conditions under which some writing was included, and other was not. And about the historical/cultural contexts in which the Bible was written.

But at bottom, I think it's the understanding of God that will matter, and as we grow to understand a God beyond gender, and look toward a more expansive view, there is hope for human-kind itself to get beyond gender.

[saltpoint]

35. A gender-neutral Bible would do just exactly what you say it will do --

it will send Jim Dobson and other insane fundies through the roof. They'd collectively explode with indignation.

And that's just why I'm for this summit / convention.

I'd start with your suggestions about a gender-neutral interpretation for all the books, and all new materials canonized.

We'd invite only progressives / liberals / people-directed panelists. Bill Moyers. Maya Angelou. Etc.

The fundies would howl and scream at the gates, but too bad -- this will be the work done toward a futurist Bible and no fundies need apply.

We simply lock their sorry asses out. Half of them are already standing in line waiting to cast a primary vote for Sam Brownback anyway. To hell with 'em.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. LOL. That all brought a smile to my face this morning

Not very nice of me, perhaps, but envisioning Sam Brownback's discomfort makes me smile all the same.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Why would that be more valid than any...

of the many versions that are out there already? And why not add a few more books, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which was widely known among early Christians?

And, how many literalists would take it seriously-- most of them seem to think anything but the King James version is heresy.

Like any sacred writings in any religion, the bible is a continuum and reading it literally is the first mistake. Far more important in most Christian sects are the commentaries, traditions and beliefs that have arisen around the Bible.

[Vidar]

20. It would be better to reintroduce the Apocrypha & "new" gospels

deriving from gnostic sources & the dead sea scrolls. The Council of Ni·caea did us a grave disservice

[neebob]

21. That would be self-defeating

in that it would upset people - some enough to leave the church, I'm sure. And it still leaves a set of books begging the question of why an omnipotent, omnipresent being would choose to allow a compilation of books written by men to communicate on its behalf instead of just shouting, "Hey, you people down there - shape up! Be nice to each other! Worship me!" or whatever.

[godhatesrepublicans]

22. It's that whole "free will thing."

Besides, there's a whole strain of thought that the Bible represents a learning curve of humanity trying to figure out what the Big Electron wants, and then messing up the message. Taking out the times people screwed it up would rob us of the chance to learn from their mistakes.

[neebob]

29. Uh-huh, and that whole free will thing

is also the product of humanity trying to figure out what the Big Electron wants.

[godhatesrepublicans]

30. Exactly! There's something I think you'd get a chuckle out of...

It's a sermon from 1819 I found, which was the first time anyone publicly summed up the Unitarian perspective clearly. Their position is that everything in the Old Testament, and everything Paul wrote only has value in as much as it helps illustrate the Sermon on the Mount and other of Jesus's moral code.

It's not a popular perspective, and most Protenstants in America don't even consider Unitarians to be Christians oddly enough. But it might amuse you to read something from a perspective you probably haven't ever heard on these things.

I reprinted it at http://godhatesrepublicans.org/sermons/sermoneight.html read it or don't.

BTW, if you have never read any Robert Anton Wilson, from your posts I think you'd like his stuff.

[neebob]

32. Honestly, it looks kinda boring.

I scanned it, though, and appreciated that Dr. Channing previewed the organization of his thoughts. Big points for that. I didn't see anything to disagree with other than the premise that God and Jesus exist. If I believed that, I could easily be a Unitarian.

Funnily enough, it reminded me of the Mormon thing about believing the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it has been correctly translated. Makes me wonder if Joseph Smith stole some of Channing's ideas. I also learned in the Mormon church that the Old Testament was for one time and the New Testament for another, but I have the impression that that's a very common view.

The thing that gave me a chuckle is in the left column, where you refer to yourself as "your humble webmaster." So you're a preacher, eh? I'm picturing you shouting, "Repent! And don't forget to perceive correctly!"

And I do like Wilson. :)

[beam me up scottie]

23. Ah, but it already has been revised, and by someone I greatly admire.

I'm referring, of course, to The Woman's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the "Revising Committee", which, according to the Internet Sacred Text Archive, is "one of the first attempts by women to evaluate the Judeo-Christian legacy and its impact on women through history. Stanton concluded that 'the Bible in its teachings degrades Women from Genesis to Revelation'.

[saltpoint]

24. Strongly agree with you that pressures brought to bear by Stanton

and those who followed her into modern feminism deserve rich credit for asking that women be treated as equals in all matters, including in the various books of the Bible.

I think there's still room for improvement, and would like to see a kind of world summit in which women's role in spiritual history is highlighted.

The last 2 heavyweight world religions -- Judeo-Christianity and Islam -- were too testosterone-heavy. Too much angry judgment and not enough inclusion and compassion. I think the imbalance is gender-based: we need women to be in more positions of greater influence, and sooner would be better than later.

____
Hey there, beam me up scottie. Your post in this thread is a delight. Thank you for all those extra steps to put this information and these ideas in front of us. Always great to bump into you on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Hello, old friend.

I'm always glad to see you in here, your insight is appreciated.

A world summit about women's role in spiritual history would be interesting, but, I'm afraid, not taken seriously by most of the leaders in the Big Two.

They're too busy killing each other according to their God's instructions.

[saltpoint]

26. It's true we would have to battle for the attention of the world while

war mongers blast each other's cities.

But Stanton faced even stiffer odds. Or Harriet Tubman. A summit like that wouldn't necessarily serve all immediate goals, but it would become a frame of reference for a later age. All Rosa Parks did was refuse to surrender her dignity, and it's she who's celebrated and loved and honored and not the thick-headed haters who tried to get her to move to the rear of the bus.

It's a darn good Saturday night on DU when I run into you. You hang in there.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Yes, uppity women, all of them.

We women owe every freedom we have now to uppity women, and, of course, also to the men who stood by their sides.

Peace!

[saltpoint]

28. And much peace to you, good person.

:hi:
:pals:

[bloom]

31. I think it would be a good idea. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Not at all

They need to continue to do what they do already: encourage individual discernment, thought, understanding and interpretation of the Bible. Make it clear that allegory isn't dirty word, but an important way of understanding the Bible.

Educate people about the cultural context, about the history of what was included and wasn't, and about the very human fallibility of the many "authors" of the book.

People simply need to give over the idea that what they're looking at or for is a rule book, to take away the trouble of having to use their own minds and make their own assessments.

I think it all has value, but not if people will read it literally and simplistically.

[lvx35]

38. ITs simply time to accept that the Bible was written by men.

Inspired men with good ideas, but men...And furthermore our interpretation can never be perfect.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Yup. And to take it slightly further,

can I emphasize the "men" part? It seems the parts from and by the women were left out as unimportant. I think it's also important to take that skew into account as well.

[lvx35]

40. Probably true,

even though a closer look at history has shown women's contributions to spirituality have been great indeed.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. I don't doubt their contributions --

just the extent to which those contributions were recognized in the written record.

[lvx35]

42. not enough, that's for sure...

But if you go from the middle ages on the records are better, and in christianity for instance, the female saints start to pop up more and more...but there is always an irony to it, you have these amazing saints (if you read their life stories) who are clearly spiritual visionaries, and they are always answering to these male bueracrats within the church with little spiritual fire...Its kind of sad, but so many of them did amazing things nevertheless.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Yes, true. Perhaps progress is just a painfully slow thing? nt