5 Common Misconceptions About the Bible

[bytebear]

Christine Hayes: 5 Common Misconceptions About the Bible

Correction #1

The Hebrew Bible is not a book. It was not produced by a single author in one time and place. It is a small library of books composed and edited over nearly a millennium by people responding to a wide range of issues and historical circumstances

Correction #2

The Hebrew Bible is not a book of systematic theology (i.e., an account of the divine) delivering eternally true pronouncements on theological issues, despite the fact that at a much later time, complex systems of theology would be spun from particular interpretations of biblical passages.

Correction #3

The Hebrew Bible is not a timeless or eternal work that stands outside the normal processes of literary production.

Correction #4

The narratives of the Hebrew Bible are not pious parables about saints, nor are they G-rated tales easily understood by children

Correction #5

The character "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as "God"). The attributes assigned to "God" by post-biblical theologians -- such as omniscience and immutability -- are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives

I think for most Mormons, these are well known and are not an issue. I think because of additional scripture, the concept of new revelation and a non-traditional view of traditional doctrines, we look at the Bible in a more realistic and not idealistic way. What do you think?

[NightSG]

Might as well get the whole lecture; Ms Hayes' class on OYC Open Yale Courses | Religious Studies is fairly interesting.

[MarginOfError]

Correction #5

The character "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as "God"). The attributes assigned to "God" by post-biblical theologians -- such as omniscience and immutability -- are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives

This is one I don't think many Mormons would comprehend.

[alanjones10]

Bytebear, the problem with using "words" is often that we use a shortened form, and lose the full explanation. I would agree and disagree with some of the things said. For example, "immutability". Simply means unchangable. But we LDS know that Yahweh was only spirit until he was born in the flesh and then his flesh was resurrected. Thus his physical self was not immutable during those stages. But if we specified that Yahweh's goodness was immutable, then i think we could support that from ancient scriptures easily. The Immutability of God is an attribute where “God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises.

[MarginOfError]

Bytebear, the problem with using "words" is often that we use a shortened form, and lose the full explanation. I would agree and disagree with some of the things said. For example, "immutability". Simply means unchangable. But we LDS know that Yahweh was only spirit until he was born in the flesh and then his flesh was resurrected. Thus his physical self was not immutable during those stages. But if we specified that Yahweh's goodness was immutable, then i think we could support that from ancient scriptures easily. The Immutability of God is an attribute where “God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises.

See point # 5

[alanjones10]

I was responding to #5. I disagree with the premise.

the work immutable: L. immutabilis "unchangeable," from in- "not" + mutabilis "changeable," from mutare "to change"

Does this mean that there is nothing about a person, entity, being, that can be changed or grown?

But the "common understanding" or rather i should say misunderstanding or maybe even better, there are thousands of understandings in christianity as to what is unchangeable about Yahweh. In some ways, he is immutable, not in every aspect has he been immutable.

As far as our experience of Yahweh, as far as the scriptures we have, Yahweh's goodness is immutable. Now i have made a blanket statement just like that item 5.

[MarginOfError]

I think Hayes' point was that the immutability of God is a relatively new concept that was unfamiliar to those who wrote the Bible. It wasn't a statement of what we believe, but rather a statement of what we believe the authors of the Bible believed.

[alanjones10]

I don't think that authors of the Bible thought Yahweh could say one thing and then not contradict it, but the use of the word immutable needs to be clarified. i claim that the biblical authors did not question the immutable nature of goodness of Yahweh and i find no scriptural dialog to challenge that. I know this was not saying what we believe, and i am maybe not so good at making my point. I think there are aspects of Yahweh that the biblical authors did take as immutable, such as his love and goodness. I know of no biblical references that say that Yahweh's love changed or his goodness slackened. That is what i am saying, the article this came from was very good but the article's author assumed that "immutability" when referenced to Yahweh means that he could not say go right, oh, changed that go left now. I never saw that as part of the definition of immutable.

[prisonchaplain]

I get that the author's 5th misconception, one held by traditional Christians, seems to favor the LDS view. My warning would be in taking too much assurance from the musings of those scholars who are more secular and more anti-supernaturalist. These brilliant thinkers may offer seeming endorsement of an occasional doctrine (Jehovah's Witness literature often quotes these types to justify their interpretations as well), but their favor will prove cold comfort. In the end, they tend to see all of us who practice a rigorous religion as hopelessly superstitious.

[Vort]

I get that the author's 5th misconception, one held by traditional Christians, seems to favor the LDS view. My warning would be in taking too much assurance from the musings of those scholars who are more secular and more anti-supernaturalist. These brilliant thinkers may offer seeming endorsement of an occasional doctrine (Jehovah's Witness literature often quotes these types to justify their interpretations as well), but their favor will prove cold comfort. In the end, they tend to see all of us who practice a rigorous religion as hopelessly superstitious.

I would take this a step further. I mostly disagree with the assertions, however much they may superficially seem to coincide with the supposed "LDS viewpoint". To wit:

• "Correction #1: The Hebrew Bible is not a book."

  False by definition. Of course it's a book. A compendium is a book. That it has multiple authors and is itself composed of discrete books is neither here nor there.

• "Correction #2: The Hebrew Bible is not a book of systematic theology (i.e., an account of the divine) delivering eternally true pronouncements on theological issues."

  This is completely dependent on what you think comprises "systematic theology". It's not a rulebook, if that's what the author of the article is driving at, but that does not mean that the Bible doesn't contain and describe a systematic theology (though as a Latter-day Saint, I would point out that the multiplicity of "systematic theologies" derived from the Bible indicate the need for divine guidance through a prophet to understand correctly).

• "Correction #3: The Hebrew Bible is not a timeless or eternal work that stands outside the normal processes of literary production."

  Again, sloppy wording obscures his point. Does he mean that "normal processes of literary production" happen to the Bible? I agree. But it sounds like he's asserting that there is no divine preservation or evidence of divine intervention in the Bible's existence. This poorly considered opinion is simply wrong.

• "Correction #4: The narratives of the Hebrew Bible are not pious parables about saints, nor are they G-rated tales easily understood by children"

  Baloney. There are in fact a great many such pious parables. And the principles are indeed easily understood by children, though perhaps not as presented in a 3,000-year-old manuscript originally written in an ancient language for a thoroughly alien culture. Duh. (And I also seriously doubt that this is a common misconception; sounds more like a straw man.)

• "Correction #5: The character 'Yahweh' in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as 'God'). The attributes assigned to 'God' by post-biblical theologians -- such as omniscience and immutability -- are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives"

  Bluntly put, this guy does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong. Period. That his reading of the Bible does not coincide with his view of Western ideas about God shows only that his reading and view are faulty. (Though again, as a Latter-day Saint, I would agree that larger Christianity's understanding of God through the Bible is incomplete and inconsistent.)

[Traveler]

It is my personal belief that the ancient texts that were selected to create the Bible were problematic by the very effort of man to create “canon” scripture. In essence as doctrinal authority there is nothing in the “Bible” that justifies its compilation and interpretive translations. Even the casual student of history realizes that the standards by which manuscripts were selected or rejected were flawed. For example all the reason (every single one of them) for excluding the testaments of the patriarchs from the Old Testament has been proven to be absolutely wrong.

Without a doubt from creation to the Book of Revelation essential pieces of information are missing or lost in either the literary translation or in history as cultures and languages have evolved. Just the study of history one realizes that societies have been better off without theoretic reliance on scripture but rather a secular defined laws maintaining freedom of religion that may be inspired by Biblical understanding but not defined by literal dependency on the ancient text.

But I am inclined to believe that the problems of “uncertainty” concerning scriptures are by divine intent. That it has always was and always will be the plan of G-d the guide his covenant people by more than the uncertanity textual witnesses - That there always has and always will be, Prophets called by G-d with authority to speak words worthy of being scripture and in his sacred name - according to the understanding and covenants of a true Kingdom. It appears obvious to me that the ancient kingdoms was lost through and during the Dark Ages and the only possible remnant left to man of the enlightenment that what once was is the Bible - flawed as what is left of it is.

The Traveler

Edited November 29, 2012 by Traveler

[AaronArthur]

Well Nephi compared the modern day bible to the brass plates. He said the modern day bible had the same things in it as the brass plate but was not as big. Most records that went trough the fall of Babylon where on scrolls. I believe that after the return of the tribe of Judah ,the Jews recompiled what they remembered trough traditional story telling being in the brass plates out of the records they had left. So the author only can come to the conclusion that the bible is not a book for the world does not except the record that was brought to light by Joseph Smith. The author can only use the recorded documentation of the combination of the scrolls that where recovered by the Jews when the Jews returned to Jerusalem. This in turn would only leave the author to conclude that the modern Hebrew bible is a combination of records and not a book.

[Sicily510]

These five common misconceptions of the Bible is a work of contention, the Bible is not a book that you read and move on to the next one. The Bible is a book that you read again and again to replenish the soul with comforts from the stories of the many different humans who've faced trials and tribulations spiritually, yet were able to overcome through the grace of Heavenly Father and the teachings of Jesus Christ.