Bible Study Pilot Thread

[Bio-logical]

I am currently reading the bible. I purchased "The HarperCollins Study Bible : New Revised Standard Version With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Book"
and just started, but I would like to discuss it with others. I was wondering if anybody might be interested in a weekly bible study/discussion/debate.

My wife does not like discussing it with me, since I am an atheist looking at it academically, but I would love to have a Christian, especially a biblically well-versed Christian, to go though this with and get their interpretation.

Depending on interest, I will start a user group and lead the discussion with a timeline. My goal is to read the entire bible over the next year.

I am considering switching versions if anybody would prefer KJV or basically whatever, specifically since I found a website that offers a timeline we could follow and complete it cover to cover over the next year, starting January 1.

http://www.ewordtoday.com/year/48/b.htm

I would like to point out that the format I propose is a weekly discussion of the scriptures read that week, debates will be asked to be held to that timeline or to spur into a new thread after that week is finished. I will post a link to the scripture being read next week with each coming week.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible.

It may, and it may not. I think you would be hard pressed to show anything approaching a consensus favoring Sumerian origins. In any event, I look forward to seeing you make the case when the time comes. L'shalom.

[Bio-logical]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible. Maybe we should start with it first.

This is the problem with any "chronological plan." Who can say when the original oral traditions were composed or formed? One reading plan is as good as another, as long as the plan is coherent in some fashion.

I suspect that problems will arise not about chronology, but when some begin to claim that certain passages contain "figures" or "types" or "prophecies" of Jesus while Jewish members disagree.

Jews and Christians, and I would suppose atheists, read the Bible in entirely different ways with entirely different preconceptions and assumptions. Atheists, for instance, often focus on the brutality and atrocities in the OT and claim that those have certain implications about the nature of God and His relationship to humans. While both Christians and Jews largely reject those implications, they bring other readings and interpretations to the table. I doubt that those will be reconciled anytime soon.

I propose that we begin with the following assumptions and no others:

The Bible is an ancient document produced by humans, and does not, or at least does not necessarily, constitute the literal Word of God. Conclusions about the nature of God cannot properly be drawn from the Biblical text, but only conclusions about the beliefs and practices of those who wrote it. As far as I am concerned, all this is non-negotiable.

While one may oneself believe that the Bible is God-authored, for the purposes of this discussion that assumption will not be productive. If that isn't established at the outset, the discussion is not likely to move beyond that disagreement.

The "Chronological Plan" is not a historical Chronology, but a narrative one. According to the bible, Job lived between Noah and Abraham, so the book is placed there for a narrative chronology. Historical Chronologies are based on when the books were written (or believed to have originated).

I do agree with you that debates about the origins or dates of the bible are not the purpose of his study but it can be used to understand the culture and beliefs of those who wrote it. I also feel that for the purposes of the study we should be reading it as written by humans, not the divine word of god. I do feel that it is appropriate to discuss the practices implicated by believing it is the divine word of god (for example Matthew 5:30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off) but debating the bible's source is outside the scope of this study.

To clarify, the purpose of this bible study is to read the bible in a logical way as a narrative and as a religious text that has shaped the practices of those religions that follow it.

The discussion of origin is outside the scope of the study - we will not be debating whether something is the word of man or god.

Discussions regarding interpretations of the text are entirely allowed and encouraged, this is the main purpose of the discussion.

Discussions regarding implications of different interpretations may arise but should be kept from disintegrating into which is the correct interpretation.

Anything I missed or you feel I should add?

[cnorman18]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible.

It may, and it may not. I think you would be hard pressed to show anything approaching a consensus favoring Sumerian origins. In any event, I look forward to seeing you make the case when the time comes. L'shalom.

I'm just going by the commentary in my Jewish Study Bible; and I don't intend to try to make that case. My point was that the specific reasons for determining an order of study don't matter very much, and one plan of study as about as good as another. I don't think the origins of that particular tale are as important as what it is attempting to teach - and THAT is a rich area for debate and disagreement.

[cnorman18]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible. Maybe we should start with it first.

This is the problem with any "chronological plan." Who can say when the original oral traditions were composed or formed? One reading plan is as good as another, as long as the plan is coherent in some fashion.

I suspect that problems will arise not about chronology, but when some begin to claim that certain passages contain "figures" or "types" or "prophecies" of Jesus while Jewish members disagree.

Jews and Christians, and I would suppose atheists, read the Bible in entirely different ways with entirely different preconceptions and assumptions. Atheists, for instance, often focus on the brutality and atrocities in the OT and claim that those have certain implications about the nature of God and His relationship to humans. While both Christians and Jews largely reject those implications, they bring other readings and interpretations to the table. I doubt that those will be reconciled anytime soon.

I propose that we begin with the following assumptions and no others:

The Bible is an ancient document produced by humans, and does not, or at least does not necessarily, constitute the literal Word of God. Conclusions about the nature of God cannot properly be drawn from the Biblical text, but only conclusions about the beliefs and practices of those who wrote it. As far as I am concerned, all this is non-negotiable.

While one may oneself believe that the Bible is God-authored, for the purposes of this discussion that assumption will not be productive. If that isn't established at the outset, the discussion is not likely to move beyond that disagreement.

The "Chronological Plan" is not a historical Chronology, but a narrative one. According to the bible, Job lived between Noah and Abraham, so the book is placed there for a narrative chronology. Historical Chronologies are based on when the books were written (or believed to have originated).

Understood, and that seems reasonable.

I do agree with you that debates about the origins or dates of the bible are not the purpose of his study but it can be used to understand the culture and beliefs of those who wrote it. I also feel that for the purposes of the study we should be reading it as written by humans, not the divine word of god. I do feel that it is appropriate to discuss the practices implicated by believing it is the divine word of god (for example Matthew 5:30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off) but debating the bible's source is outside the scope of this study.

To clarify, the purpose of this bible study is to read the bible in a logical way as a narrative and as a religious text that has shaped the practices of those religions that follow it.

The discussion of origin is outside the scope of the study - we will not be debating whether something is the word of man or god.

Discussions regarding interpretations of the text are entirely allowed and encouraged, this is the main purpose of the discussion.

Discussions regarding implications of different interpretations may arise but should be kept from disintegrating into which is the correct interpretation.

Anything I missed or you feel I should add?

Sounds good to me. Be sure to post a link in this thread when you get it started.

[Heterodoxus]

Scholar's Plan is acceptable to me.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible. Maybe we should start with it first.

This is the problem with any "chronological plan." Who can say when the original oral traditions were composed or formed? One reading plan is as good as another, as long as the plan is coherent in some fashion.

I suspect that problems will arise not about chronology, but when some begin to claim that certain passages contain "figures" or "types" or "prophecies" of Jesus while Jewish members disagree.

Jews and Christians, and I would suppose atheists, read the Bible in entirely different ways with entirely different preconceptions and assumptions. Atheists, for instance, often focus on the brutality and atrocities in the OT and claim that those have certain implications about the nature of God and His relationship to humans. While both Christians and Jews largely reject those implications, they bring other readings and interpretations to the table. I doubt that those will be reconciled anytime soon.

I propose that we begin with the following assumptions and no others:

The Bible is an ancient document produced by humans, and does not, or at least does not necessarily, constitute the literal Word of God. Conclusions about the nature of God cannot properly be drawn from the Biblical text, but only conclusions about the beliefs and practices of those who wrote it. As far as I am concerned, all this is non-negotiable.

While one may oneself believe that the Bible is God-authored, for the purposes of this discussion that assumption will not be productive. If that isn't established at the outset, the discussion is not likely to move beyond that disagreement.

The "Chronological Plan" is not a historical Chronology, but a narrative one. According to the bible, Job lived between Noah and Abraham, ...

I look forward to reading your evidence.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll participate in whatever 'plan' is agreed upon, but my strong preference is the 'plan' that resulted in the text as we now have it. Stuffing Job in between Genesis 11 and 12 strikes me as absurd, disruptive of the discussion of Genesis, and guaranteed to short change the wisdom literature.

The reason Job is stuck in the middle is because according to scripture Job lived sometime between creation and Abraham, so he is put there.

There are various views regarding when (or if) Job lived, but I fully suspect it was written for a Torah-aware audience.

The book of Job as we have it today was no doubt redacted post-Torah, but the narrative that is its root may very well date back to the Sumerian civilization and be the oldest part of the Bible.

It may, and it may not. I think you would be hard pressed to show anything approaching a consensus favoring Sumerian origins. In any event, I look forward to seeing you make the case when the time comes. L'shalom.

I'm just going by the commentary in my Jewish Study Bible; and I don't intend to try to make that case. My point was that the specific reasons for determining an order of study don't matter very much, and one plan of study as about as good as another. ...

I suppose you're correct. My strong preference is to work through the Torah as we now have it, but any rational structure should prove adequate.

[Bio-logical]

So I have requested the user group and sub forum as follows, any MODS reading this if you might be able to help expedite the process I would love to have it up before the new year maybe?

[mrow]Group Name [col]Bible Study Participant [mrow]Enrollment [col]Open [mrow]Description [col]The Bible Study Participants read through the entire bible together and discuss readings as they do. [mrow]Sub-forum request[col]We would like a sub-forum as well so that we do not derail any current forum, but would prefer it be open permission so that anybody can read and participate as long as they follow the sub-forum rules. [mrow] Sub-forum name[col]Bible Study [mrow] Sub-forum description[col] Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

The purpose of this bible study is to read the bible in a logical way as a narrative and as a religious text that has shaped the practices of those religions that follow it.

This is not a "Christian" bible study, although people of all religious backgrounds are welcome to participate. It is meant to be a study of the bible as a text, to better understand the book in a scholarly manner.

The discussion of origin is outside the scope of the study - we will not be debating whether something is the word of man or god.

Discussions regarding interpretations of the text are entirely allowed and encouraged, this is the main purpose of the discussion.

Discussions regarding implications of different interpretations may arise but should be kept from disintegrating into which is the correct interpretation.

We will be reading according to the Scholar's Plan, a narratively chronological plan to read the bible so that the stories in it take place in order. We will have assigned reading and will move on when the discussion has reached a conclusion or when it involves few participants, at which point we will ask that they continue it in a separate thread.

The readings are based on the King James Version of the Bible, links to the reading will be posted before starting a new section, but participants are welcome to read whichever translation they prefer and are encouraged to discuss differences in translation.

Would it be too much to ask to get it up and running before the new year?

Also I think it is prudent to give the first assigned reading. I feel it is appropriate to read Genesis 1- 5, which is approximately equal to "5 days" of reading in the plan but I think it holds much to discuss without mixing the flood into it yet. The reading includes creation through the fall of man, including Cain and Abel and everything up to the introduction of Noah and before the causes of the flood.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I feel it is appropriate to read Genesis 1- 5, which is approximately equal to "5 days" of reading in the plan but I think it holds much to discuss without mixing the flood into it yet.

May I ask why you feel it appropriate or necessary to take on so much?

[Bio-logical]

I feel it is appropriate to read Genesis 1- 5, which is approximately equal to "5 days" of reading in the plan but I think it holds much to discuss without mixing the flood into it yet.

May I ask why you feel it appropriate or necessary to take on so much?

Its really not that much, only like 10 pages, but to answer your question directly I have no idea. I have never lead a bible study before so I am kinda shooting off he hip and hoping for feedback. I chose the reading selection because it seemed like a logical stopping point in the reading. Feel free to offer up any suggestions as we are all in this together. Remember, though, that the original design of this was a weekly reading that is discussed so that anybody interested can participate without needing to be reading every day. I also feel it appropriate to do that since I am posting links to the readings and choosing them each time, so if we did a daily reading I would undoubtedly miss some.