« A BUSY DAY AND A DEVIL DOG TO TIDE YOU OVER | Main | THE EFFECT OF BIBLICAL SUBMISSION ON WOMEN'S SELF-IMAGE »

Comments

Richard

>>>Unfortunately, Sienkiewicz, a man of the nineteenth century, was no feminist.

ARGH! Don’t you just HATE that? ;)

>>>I have never read the Bible straight through and, as a result, a lot of it is just a jumble in my mind.

I found the Bible to be boring. Incredibly boring. Of course I thought this of Homer too, and it's yet another classic. Go figure. I could never understand people who actually *study* the Bible, as if it contains some logical unifying theme, theory, story, or even morality. Might as well study an auto parts catalog. The Bible's full of inconsistencies, vagueness, false starts, mind numbing detail that leads absolutely nowhere, and copious sub-"plots" that seem silly. Okay, Palms has some beautiful language, I'll grant. And Revelation is fun to read because prose written on acid is usually fairly original. And I do like the study of the *origins* of the texts. But to actually sit down and read the texts themselves cover to cover? Good luck, and put on lots of coffee.

I'll look forward to your impressions when you're finished.

The Happy Feminist

I am very fond of Genesis, Exodus, Job, Micah ("Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God"!), the Song of Solomon, and the Gospels. As for the rest of the New Testament: Unfortunately, Paul, a man of the first century, was no feminist.

Revelation I always had a tough time with because it's so fantastical and I think you need to know the back story to even start to get a glimmer of what the guy's talking about.

Mrs. B

I can understand what you're saying because before I was born again I thought the Bible was boring too.....it makes a BIG difference when you have a personal relationship with the Author! I have heard a few testimonies from people who read the Bible before they were saved and they were able to glean much from it....the difference seems to be that they were truly seeking. They humbled themselves and God knew they were sincerely seeking Him so He chose to reveal things to them. The Bible is a living, breathing Book and without the Holy Spirit's help it's hard to grasp.

As to the 'inconsistancies' that Richard wrote about....there are principles of correct Biblical interpretation....the Bible calls it 'rightly dividing the word of truth'. You must take into account 'who' it is written to and also keep things in context. Context is a BIG thing. A lot of people think there are inconsistancies in the Gospels but really if you think about it, it's what makes the accounts more realistic. For instance you and I could observe the same event and if we were to re tell it we would each bring out different aspects of the same event. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit...in other words God wrote it through them and as a result, aspects of their personalities came through.

hafidha sofia

HF - Is the order of the books in the bible very necessary? I don't know how they are ordered or if they are all chronological, but if not, maybe you don't need to read it "straight through" but can read them *relatively* straight through if it helps you finish them.

Mrs. B

For the most part, the books of the Bible are not written in chronological order. If you want to read the Bible in chronological order there are websites that have chronological Bible reading schedules.

Chalicechick

I really liked Leviticus as a kid.

CC

The Happy Feminist

You were a weird kid, Chalicechick!

The books do seem to be organized though, it terms of Pentateuch, history, poetic books, prophets, etc, even if it's not chronological. But the truth is I am compulsive and for some reason I feel the need to read the thing straight through, even if that's not the most sensible way to go about it.

Richard

Mrs B-- I understand what you're saying, but I'm also sure you understand that "correct Biblical interpretation" is itself open to interpretation, and so we could go around in circles. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to circles (I am a lawyer after all), but talking about correct interpretation doesn't settle a thing. In the end it comes down to "faith" which I personally believe has some extrememly serious drawbacks as a tool for navigating everyday life, but that's a different issue.

>>>Unfortunately, Paul, a man of the first century, was no feminist.

Heh. Very funny, HF.


Mrs. B

Richard: I agree that arguing in circles, on this subject, is a waste of time....and I don't have the time to do so but I did want to comment on this comment you made:

"In the end it comes down to "faith" which I personally believe has some extrememly serious drawbacks as a tool for navigating everyday life, but that's a different issue."

Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".....Christianity isn't a blind faith, there is 'substance' and 'evidence' to it.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now though....have a great rest of the weekend! (o:

Mrs. B

HF: If you're interested, here is a site which has a chronological Bible format. It can be nice to read it that way because it makes the books like Obadiah fit into historical context.

http://www.christianbeliefs.org/brs/biblereadingsch-00.html

The comments to this entry are closed.