Imminent Fulfillment, Immortality, Safety, Empowerment, Equality, Knowledge, Unity, Society

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches
of evil to one who is striking at the root." -
Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Suggested Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses List

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Christendom Analyzed
Christendom Challenged
Christendom Condemned
Bible/Canon Issues

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus

Philosophy Material
Paradigm Material
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Theological Issues

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material
Cosmology Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Venus-Mars Material
Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Chronology Revision

Miscellaneous Material
Misc Issues/Conclusions
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store


"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity." —Martin Luther King

Bible Textual Comments

Recommended reading:

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, 2nd edition, Mayfield Publishing Company, Palo Alto, California, 1985

The world's best known and most influential book, the Bible, is also one of the least understood. Although three great world religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—claim its authority for their beliefs, neither they nor any of the hundreds of lesser faiths that have developed from them can seem to agree on its fundamental message and meaning. Understanding the Bible, 2nd edition, p. xi

Commentary: Although I had learned "memory verses" from the Bible since the age of 5 years, and studied and learned material FROM the bible all of my reading life, it was not until my 44th year that I learned any significant thing ABOUT the Bible other than what was inferred from my own reading of it. The above book, often used as a college level textbook, was an invaluable mind-opener for me.

Recommended reading:

Burton L, Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?, HarperCollins Publisher, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, 10022, 1996. The following passage is from this book, p. 1-3.

PROLOGUE from Who Wrote the New Testament


Fascination with sacred scriptures seldom surfaces for observation or remark. Their mystique is subtle, something that most persons in a culture would hardly recognize even if mentioned. I have been pondering that mystique, asking why the Bible has such a curious hold on our minds and imaginations. I have not been thinking about the obviously embarrassing public displays of foolish obsessions with the Bible in our time, listening for the hoofbeats of John's four horsemen of the apocalypse, for instance, or citing Paul to prove that gays are sinners in the eyes of God. Madness of that sort can pop up in times of social and cultural crisis no matter what the issue or the mythic authorities might be. I am thinking instead about all of the seemingly innocent ways in which the Bible is taken for granted as a special book, and about all of the ways in which it works its magic in our culture without ever being acknowledged, consulted, or read.

The range of procedures for consulting the Bible is astounding. Students tell me that their grandmothers used to seek "a word for the day" by letting their Bible flop open to a "verse for the day." Ministers, priests, rabbis, preachers, and teachers by the thousands pore over these texts in quest of some lesson or message fit for their classes or congregations. Groups are now forming outside the formal boundaries of institutional religion to study the Bible in the hope of discovering some fundamental truth felt to have been lost in our recent past. Think of the intellectual labor invested in the academic study of the Bible, the production of scholarly studies and guides for interpreting the Bible, and the huge flow of literature that constantly pours forth from church houses and commercial publishers of books on the Bible. One might well wonder at all this activity swirling around a single book.

This constant consultation of the Bible is partially explained by the important role assigned to the Bible in our religious institutions. Readings from the Bible are essential to liturgies, lessons from the Bible are basic for teachings and doctrines, and references to the Bible are felt to be necessary in the construction of theologies by those charged with the intellectual life of religious traditions. The remarkable thing about this kind of appeal to the Bible, however, is that it does not seem to matter whether all of the theologies and teachings so derived agree. And it does not matter that, for a particular teaching or view, the "biblical" basis may consist of only a small set of sentences taken out of context and pressed into a dogma. This is true even at the highest levels of serious theological discourse. A study by David Kelsey (1975) has shown that, as one moves from one theological system to another among the Christian traditions in America, the selection of biblical texts said to be basic for the system also changes. It is as if everyone knows that the voices recorded in the Bible are many and diverse but that everyone continues to treat the Bible as if it spoke with a single voice. And even though the Bible is treated as a book with a single message, everyone understands that it must be studied as if the message were hidden or un­clear. It is treated as if it were a collection of divine oracles that have to be decoded in order to arrive at the truth they contain. Is it not odd that one needs to consult the Bible, study the Bible, comb through the Bible, or pierce the surface of its enigmatic language in order to discern the hidden truth that gives it the authority it has for our religions? Is it not odd that we have not taken note of this curious preoccupation with the relentless "study" of the Bible in our society and that we do not ask what it is about the Bible and our religions that lies behind such fascination?

The Bible also works its magic in our culture outside the bounds of religious institutions, although the ways in which it influences our collective sense of values and patterns of thinking as Americans are not readily recognized or discussed openly among us. Most of us do know, however, that biblical imagery and themes pervade the history of Western literature, theater, art, and architecture. We also know that the Bible was always involved in the conquest of other lands. During the "age of discovery," for instance, Columbus studied the Bible in order to plan his voyages, and he read the parable of the feast in Luke 14:16-24 as a commission to circle the globe and "compel" the heathen to convert as Luke 14:23 enjoins (J. Z. Smith 1986). Should not such examples of the Bible's influence in the history of our expansive civilizations bring a little frown of embarrassment to our faces?

We also have a vague notion of the importance attached to the Bible in early American history. It was the one book everyone had in hand, and it shaped the way we viewed the land, treated Native Americans, and constructed our institutions, including schools, universities, and the curricula of higher education. Many Americans have been quite intentional about treating the Bible as a charter for our nation. Thomas Jefferson, for example, thought it important to match the level of enlightenment we had reached in American democratic institutions with a Bible purged of its myths and miracles. Thus the "Jefferson Bible" contained only the pristine teachings of Jesus. As for the unpurged Bible, segregation in the South was long justified by quoting the curse on Ham's posterity in Genesis 9:20-27 on the one hand, and arguing for the right to demand obedience from a slave by citing Paul on the other. When the lure of "developing" the "vacant" lands to the West in the late nineteenth century reached its peak, volumes of utopian poetry were written by leading American authors, such as Walt "Whitman, rife with biblical themes about our manifest destiny as the people of God, called to create a paradise in the midst of an erstwhile wilderness. And the cliches we have used to announce our presence to the world have all been taken from biblical imagery: "righteous nation," "city set on a hill," and "light to the nations." What do you suppose we would have said about ourselves if we had not had the Bible?

In our own time, it is the frequent mention of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" that reveals how naively and automatically the Bible plays its role in public discourse. The term Judeo-Christian means that we stand in the "biblical tradition,” and the biblical tradition is regarded as the source for the values that make our society respectable and legitimate. No one finds it strange to hear senators quoting from the Bible or objects when presidents-elect place their hands upon it while taking the oath of office. It is as if we take our place in history by unreflected reference to the Bible. A vague recollection of the biblical story seems to be in everyone’s mind, a story that begins at the creation of the world with Adam and Eve in the garden, that courses through the Bible and then through the history of Western civilization to flow into the fulfillment of its promise in America with a culmination in the future of consequence for all the peoples of the world. Those who have studied American popular culture tell us that the Bible has profoundly influenced the way we tell our stories, look for meanings, quest for transformations, imagine our futures, and hope for apocalyptic solutions to our problems. If the Bible is that important to our culture, is it not strange that we have not questioned the reasons why?

I have also been impressed with the authority we grant the Bible when discussing issues of social consequence. The list of issues currently under discussion includes the place of creationism in public schools, the role of women in our society, social attitudes toward various sexual orientations, Jewish-Christian relations, theories of white supremacy, patriarchal institutions, the use of natural resources, the definition of family values, understanding violence, how best to relate to other cultures, and what responsibility we have for maintaining human rights around the world. Most of these issues could be discussed without referring to the biblical heritage, but the Bible is always lurking in the background, and positions have been taken on all of them that ultimately appeal to the Bible as the final word. When that happens, thinking and reasonable discussion stop. We do not know how to proceed after the Bible has been invoked. We are all complicit in letting an appeal to the Bible count as an argument.

One of the reasons for our silence when confronted with a proof text from the Bible is that we simply do not know what to make of the Bible and its contents. Thus we do not know what to say in response to those who use the Bible as an authority for their views. Despite the enormous investment in biblical studies in our society, there is actually very little public knowledge about the Bible. One cannot assume that anyone knows why the individual books of the Bible were first written, how they were understood by those who first read them, when and why they were firs brought together in a single volume, what the historical significance of that moment was, how the Christian church has reinterpreted all of them many times in the course of western cultural history, and what the lasting effect of the layered text has been. It is the strange authority granted to the Bible in our society, an acquiescence that pertains whether one is a Christian or not, together with the poverty of our knowledge and public discussions of the Bible, that is the stimulus for this book. Here we are with the Bible on our hands and we do not know how we got it, how it works, or what to make of it in public forum.

Bible Text Comments

  1. When questioning the theology of the OT it is important to understand that much of its theology was grounded in the mythology of ancient man. Whether the original writers of Old Testament material were writing down oral tradition material, spiritually stylized stories, poetry, allegories, aphorisms, songs and war chants, prayers, or even historical accounts in some cases, it is crucial to realize that the material was NOT protected from change and kept pristine but was subject to redaction and embellishment.

  2. While sometimes even the spirit or meaning of an account or passage can be lost in any translation to another language, some clarity of meaning is ALMOST ALWAYS lost. In the case of the Old Testament, we have lost the referents that would give us a decent translation of the ancient Akkadian, Hebrew  and Aramaic languages. Some of this is being restored by working with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the thousands of tablets of Ebla and other archaeological troves, but the learning is coming out very slowly and is, of course, being resisted by various factions. Some scholars think that up to 25% of the Old Testament should be significantly changed. All this on top of the loss of knowledge of even the cultural and psychological aspects. Read Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind  for a startling distinctive dimension of what probably was dramatically different in ancient times.

  3. Equally important to any other aspect of the development, exegesis, and translation of the Bible is the OT context of global extraterrestrial-origin catastrophes. These were the backdrop of the myth development through the spiritual stylization of the events into mythic stories. Of lesser yet significant importance is the NT context of the writers being familiar with the basic knowledge of the planet-gods' overwhelming involvement in ancient times. No one was ignorant—like they are today—of the tumultuous history of the ancient earth back in those times.

  4. Essentially over 1500 years went by from the time of Christ without a Bible translation in the common tongue of European nations except for what was done in Latin. Tyndale's NT translation into English was published in 1525, and this translation has probably heavily influenced all successors.

  5. It is important to see that a very reasonable approach must be taken in terms of even determining what text should be included as well as how it is to be translated.

  6. This is contrary to what is generally taught in fundamentalist Christian sectarian education, in that they teach that the Holy Spirit is supposed to have guided some special council of Christian Brethren into a process of determination that is free from error.

  7. The paranoid conservative element in Christianity always is afraid of new or different translation, even though they are superior translations based upon better information and language understanding.

  8. There are several different Christian canons and Christendom is NOT united upon a canonical foundation.

  9. The sayings and things included in the Gospel of Thomas have been authenticated to a higher degree than those included in the Synoptic Gospels.

  10. For the first approx 100 years of Christianity, not even the Gospels of Matthew, Mark Luke and John were considered to be authoritative. It is important to understand that the scriptures up until the late 1st or early 2nd century did not even include the Gospels but were comprised of the OT, the apocrypha, and the letters of Paul. Clearly Christianity is based primarily upon the concepts of Peter and Paul rather than the teachings and message of Jesus.

  11. There is no concept of the Devil in the Old Testament, and the being identified as Satan ostensibly was a member if God's court and was working for god, filling a role

  12. Late in its development but before Christianity, Judaism adopted constructs of the "Lord of Darkness" from Zoroastrianism, and these borrowings laid the foundation for concepts of the Devil in Christian understanding.

  13. Understanding this development helps one to see that there is no such person as Satan or the Devil. These terms are at best the personification of the original sin idea created by human beings.

  14. At the time of Jesus in the Holy Lands, demons—both good and bad—were given credit for compelling humans to do most everything that had to do with "morals".

  15. Jesus personified both Wisdom and original sin in his conversation. In his teaching, this "evil one" or "Divider" is not a heavenly being that rebelled and fell from grace but rather the original sin or misconception.

  16. The Gospel of John was written to contrast and correct the theology of the synoptic gospels. Its theology does not agree, is quite different, and quite superior.

  17. This basic information helps give a perspective on the whole process of the development of the gospels inside the development of the New Testament canon. The understanding of this basic material concerning the synoptic gospels is completely necessary to a proper perspective and understanding on how to treat the material inside of the Gospels.

  18. Seeing Jesus as a greater Moses who introduced a new law and covenant is a completely misguided theological concept, with which the author John specifically makes a contrast (See John 1:17) "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

  19. In Western culture Humanism is replacing sacred writings. The United States has as its "sacred writings" both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In the Declaration of Independence our founding fathers did something unique in the history of men founding governments.  As their rationale for thinking and structuring a new government, they did not say, "The Sacred Writing (Bible, Koran, Pentateuch, etc.) says..."  No, they stood up and said, "We hold these truths to be self evident". SELF EVIDENT! And they wrote this in the context of thinking about the only two things that give positive meaning to anything, the sustenance ("Life") and enhancement of life ("Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness").

  20. Although the Old Testament represents SOME of the Hebrew mythology, theology and cultural aspects, it does NOT represent these completely nor totally adequately. Although there are some historical accounts, these cannot be taken at face value. All together, it cannot be a basis for building a proper conceptual framework for understanding God. Included are some beautiful allegories and stories that represent real insight when properly understood, and there are some wonderful nuggets of wisdom and advice. HOWEVER, these primarily apply to mundane matters, and not to the larger issues raised by the human condition. For our culture, it is of significant value to be acquainted with its content.

Home  Site Sections  Complete Article Map   Contact  Store  Contributions