Moderator: Dave Roberts
KeithE wrote:JE Pettibone wrote:Ed": Keith, do you know when and where this Rabbi did her Rabbinical studies? Trudy received an MA in Cognitive Language Studies from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. In 1998 and 99 she was the liaison between Jewish and Christian Graduate Students. Many of our friends during that period are Now Reformed Rabbis.
Her name is Rabbi Elizabeth Bahar and apparently she did her studies at Hebew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion in NYC. Source: Her Facebook. Don’t know when but she is probably in her 30s or early 40s (my guess).
Here is a story about her.
Rvaughn wrote:There have been some interesting posts indicating a wide range of views on the Bible. I thought of another question for discussion.
How do your views on the Bible inform and direct your quantity and quality of Bible study? For example, if you think that the Bible has a number of contradictions, absurdities, and/or morally questionable advice, how does that affect the way you study the Bible and how much time and importance you give to Bible study? Or, if you believe that the New Testament cannot be understood without sufficient knowledge of the Old Testament, or believe that you cannot understand the Old Testament without reading it through the lens of the New Testament, does that affect how much time (comparatively) you give to studying one versus the other? Just a couple of examples to identify what I mean, but not to limit the discussion to those.
Thanks.
I am curious whether you follow that editorial policy when writing of the Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Book of Mormon, and so forth?KeithE wrote:* Note that i do not capitalize “bible”. It is not divine. Yes i know most books are capitalized, but i just want to make a point.
KeithE wrote:Just uncapitalized my i’s as well
KeithE wrote:Once as a 17-18 year old i found out that the Bible was not inerrant...
Rvaughn wrote:I am curious whether you follow that editorial policy when writing of the Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada, Book of Mormon, and so forth?KeithE wrote:* Note that i do not capitalize “bible”. It is not divine. Yes i know most books are capitalized, but i just want to make a point.KeithE wrote:Just uncapitalized my i’s as well
By the way, you missed one the the "B's".KeithE wrote:Once as a 17-18 year old i found out that the Bible was not inerrant...
Just in case you thought I was offended, I am not. But I was curious to understand how broadly you applied your "books not divine" idea to the English rules of capitalization.KeithE wrote:But don’t take me too confrontingly.
Rvaughn wrote:While I disagree with the way I feel some liberals and progressives seem to dismiss the Bible, we are not without problems on the conservative to fundamental end of the spectrum. In studying the Bible I try not to miss the big picture looking for the little picture, not to miss the haystack looking for the needle in it. Or as Jesus put it, we might carefully pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and yet omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. I often say to my church, "I don't understand [this or that detail], but let's not miss the big picture.
Exactly. That's a good way to put it. I grew up on Baptist Sunday School Board/Lifeway Sunday School and Bible study literature, and the approach was always more or less a "verse by verse" exegesis, landing on evidence for this doctrinal point, or that one, without a whole lot of consideration given to the whole concept that each passage supported. A lot of little personal pet doctrines underwent some considerable change when viewed in the context of the whole principle to which the verses were connected. When I went to a Baptist college, and discovered that historical context and original language changed perception, it was shocking at first, though the study of scripture was still done in small pieces, "verse by verse.
"It's much more difficult to look at the Bible wholistically, ....
I can't really identify any "liberals and progressives" who "dismiss" the Bible. I know some who have vastly different interpretations of it, or who do not necessarily accept some of the premises that conservatives do, but I can also point to conservatives and fundamentalists who 1. shroud themselves in descriptive language about the Bible, and then 2. ignore it altogether when it is not to their benefit, or who 3. insert human-derived theological "systems" into it in order to achieve a particular interpretation, or who 4. take it out of context for their own benefit.
Wholistic refers to the whole, a whole item or whole body of a person or thing.
A holistic view means that we are interested in engaging and developing the whole person. You can think of this as different levels, physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. It's the concept that the human being is multi-dimensional. We have conscious and unconscious aspects, rational and irrational aspects.
Haruo wrote:Sandy, maybe you can comment on your take on this item I just posted on Facebook. You're not the first I've seen use the word (or the spelling). "wholistically"
Hebrews 7:18-19 wrote: The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Sandy, I'd also be interested in your explanation of “descriptive language.” I was confused by it as well.KeithE wrote:...did you mean today “deceptive language” instead of “descriptive language” in 1. (spell checker striking again)?
Rvaughn wrote:Sandy, I'd also be interested in your explanation of “descriptive language.” I was confused by it as well.KeithE wrote:...did you mean today “deceptive language” instead of “descriptive language” in 1. (spell checker striking again)?
I'd just have to say that we know some different people. But that really wasn't the main point of that paragraph, which was a segue to one problem some conservatives have.Sandy wrote:I can't really identify any "liberals and progressives" who "dismiss" the Bible.
Sandy wrote:...point to conservatives and fundamentalists who shroud themselves in descriptive language about the Bible, and then ignore it altogether when it is not to their benefit, or who insert human-derived theological "systems" into it in order to achieve a particular interpretation, or who take it out of context for their own benefit.
Thanks for the explanation. No doubt many hard passages can be and are avoided or ignored, but (again knowing different people, I suppose) I find a lot of fundamentalists and conservatives often camp out on not so clear, hard passages (but perhaps not the same ones you are talking about). In our case, at least at the local church level, we would find it hard to avoid difficult passages altogether (assuming we wanted to), since in our adult Bible study we have a plan to go through all the books of the Bible (we are a long way from accomplishing it). I would add, though, that “I don't know” can be a completely honest and acceptable answer. Perhaps it is more needful for conservatives who believe in inerrancy than progressives who don't -- who have the option of saying some things like what I recently read in Baptist News in some of Chuck Queen's opinion pieces: “I find [that part of the Bible account] to be totally unbelievable and unacceptable,” “I think it is important to note that it is very unlikely that the historical Jesus actually said this,” and “I have no doubt Matthew added this to the original parable.”Sandy wrote:When I say they "shroud themselves in descriptive language about the Bible, I mean the over-use of terms like inerrant, infallible, verbal, and plenary. If it's all they say that it is, then why ignore the difficult, not so clear, hard passages.
Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests