(Part 2) Best christian bible study books according to redditors

Yes! I own it. Unfortunately, it is as boring as it sounds. The New Testament without miracles is just Jesus wandering around telling people not to be dicks.

The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth https://www.amazon.com/dp/1604591285/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_QTsSzbXQYPQTB

One thing you learn when you study egyptology is that evidence for pretty much anything is quite scant, and the major primary sources we have are laudatory funerary texts of people trying to convince the gods they are worthy of a good afterlife.

There are some Egyptologists who defend the historicity of the exodus. One, for example, is Kenneth Kitchen, an egyptologist who is Professor emiritus and Honorary research fellow at the School of Archeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool. One good book on the topic that attempts to create a defense of the historicity of Israel in Egypt is James K. Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence of the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition.

Anyway, what do you mean evidence that it never happened? are you referring to primary sources that say "The Israelites were not here"? There may certainly be a lack of evidence, but that does not mean that it didn't happen, only if you would expect there to be more evidence if it did happen, and that can be debated.

I really wish I had directly cited things in my answer but wrote it from memory away from my library, but if you are curious about specific things I'd be happy to provide proper citations for them. There is a whole, and not especially googleable, world of talented academics who have spent their lives working through this kind of stuff - and post Classical Greek sex is a hot topic at the moment. I can recommend some books,


Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens - by James Davidson is an awesome, interesting, and accessible - if sometimes almost comically erudite with really beautiful turns of phrase - introduction to Classical Greek sexuality that is well cited and at least makes a solid sporting effort at being academically neutral. From your question you will probably also find its clear descriptions of pre-Christian reasons for why lust and unregulated sexuality were seen as sub-optimal in totally different, and fundamentally pretty fucking alien, ways interesting. If reading about an ancient depiction of Socrates, attending one of the truly alarming number of symposia he was said to be present at, asking prying questions of a prominent hetaerae (literally companion, but in this context describes someone who would accept gifts from friends who would then sometimes then be slept with but not in exchange for those gifts) in Alexandria about exactly what the arrangement, if it could be hesitantly described as such, was interests you than this is your book.


Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (google preview with essay titles) is a well edited collection of scholarly essays on the topic from a variety of perspectives.


Also Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome for a more Roman centric perspective if thats what you're looking for.


For a thorough discussion of human sexuality from a Christian perspective in a historical context Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is now a classic that seems to get rediscovered on the internet on a roughly annual basis.

According to to the Biblical scholar Robert Alter, this passage uses a common convention of repeating something to show that the person listening needed convincing or more explanation.

> "This is the first instance of a common convention of Biblical narrative: when a speaker addresses someone and the formula for introducing speech is repeated with no intervening response from the interlocutor, it generally indicates some sort of significant silence - a failure to comprehend, a resistance to the speaker's words, and so forth."

He goes on, in more words than I feel like typing, to say that after God flatly states his promise, apparently Noah needs more convincing.

----

I can't link to the text, but here's a link to the book. He says what I quoted in the notes to the passage in question. The Five Books of Moses

Hey. Sorry this is long but maybe it would help.

I've decided I don't care if people spam my mail-box and say I'm a liar (it's the Internet... you guys can't get me! Why have I been so afraid for so long about the response?) but I've been aware of predominant and heavy, but not exclusive, same-sex attractions within myself since I was around 11 or 12.

So in a way I know what it's like. But since I'm attracted to some, albeit very few, people of the opposite sex (women) I won't claim to be in the exact same situation.

I have never had sex and do wonder if I'll ever marry. I'm young though so it's easy to put out of my mind now but I know any future wife I may have I cannot reasonably expect to live with without her knowing what one of my primary struggles is. So she'll have to know. I can see a lot of young women rejecting me over that. I can't blame them. But part of the struggle is is the ever-increasing idea that if you don't follow your sexual passions that you are doomed to an unfulfilled life... which saddens me. The more this idea is accepted the more people have difficulty accepting or respecting my decision when I tell them. And when you're berated with that idea, you want to believe it. You want to cave. But I believe I can, and am, fulfilled in Christ. Not sex.

That doesn't make it easy. I've failed in some ways. Like when a friend of mine, a guy, earlier this semester came onto me and we started making out. I don't want to get graphic or overly-descriptive but let's just say we messed around (though I wouldn't call anything we did "sex" it was "sexual" and, well, Jesus was pretty hard-lined about lust). Every time we hang out, alone, he tries to do the same thing. ("I'm cold. I'm just cuddling" --BULL CRAP. I saw guys pull that on girls in Middle school. Does he think I'm stupid?) It really damaged our friendship and when I told him I couldn't do that anymore, the next day, he gave me a speech about my impending, unending, future happiness for denying "who I am." I have stuck to my decision since despite numerous opportunities and temptations. Fortunately, I DO have Christian friends who support what I believe the bible clearly teaches and are, because of that, understanding and supportive of my efforts. They keep me accountable -- (one friend receives emails of my internet history from a program provided by xxxchurch to make sure I'm not looking at porn, for example).

The point is you don't need to be self-loathing to accept the "traditional" (i.e. what scripture teaches) about the purpose of marriage-- one man, one woman, being reunited (one flesh) -- that is the proper context of sex.

In practice, it IS difficult to accept. So many reinvent what Paul and Jesus taught. Jesus spoke against "pornea" (and of course adultery too) which include all sex outside of marriage.

When people complain about Christianity there are "The Big four" which people take issue with.

1.)The problem of evil.
2.)Sex.
3.)Money.
4.)Christian hypocrisy.
So it's no surprise this issue keeps coming up--even among those who do not experience same-sex attractions.


Scripture is a strange thing-- it simultaneously has the highest view of sex imaginable and says that if you're not married you should do without. Sex is meant to be enjoyed. But at the same time Paul says "It is better for a man to remain single." To look into this mystery I would suggest looking at Tim Keller's sermon "Sexuality and Christian Hope". It's a good resource for everyone, regardless of their situation..

Pertaining more to homosexuality, I've found hope and explanations in several people's stories. Two of whom are alive today. I wish to tell you about them..

Wesley Hill is a gay Christian who believes in what scripture says about sexuality and strives to live accordingly. We all have struggles. We have have our temptations. But he doesn't downplay anything. He doesn't say "Oh well" and ignore it. He thinks critically (currently going after a Ph.D in theology, I think, at Oxford) and talks openly about these topics. Here are a few articles by him which may prove enlightening. He also has a book called "Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality".

Here are a few articles by him:

A--“A Few Like You”: Will the Church be the Church for Homosexual Christians?


B--What Place Is There for Celibacy? Wesley Hill on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality

Christopher Yuan, who lived for many years as an openly-gay man before becoming a Christian, has also provided answers for me. Here is his website.. He has a book which he wrote with his mother entitled "Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope."

Finally, here is a lengthy article about sexual identity and the church:

At the Intersection of Religious and Sexual Identities: A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality

by Mark A. Yarhouse

Starting at part II on that last article really delves into the issues with Christians, who believe in the "traditional" view of sexuality, who nonetheless have same-sex attractions. Because too many churches focus on "change" (not of behavior but of attractions and feelings), there is a huge void in identity. They can't accept gay labels because that implies they intend to engage in homosexual relationships. They don't feel attracted to the opposite sex, so they do not qualify as straight. The author challenges Churches to be a place where people can find their identity in Christ. The goal is not "heterosexuality"-- can God change our attractions? Yes, of course, he's God, but that doesn't mean it's likely....-- just as when we become Christians not all temptations go away (they may intensify!) our sexual passions do not go away. The goal is "Holy sexuality". As Christopher Yuan remarks God says "Be Holy as I am Holy" not "Be heterosexual as I am heterosexual". Holy sexuality involves either sex within marriage (with our First parents, Adam and Eve, as the example-- one man and one woman completing one another) or celibacy.

Now, I'd venture to say most feel intense sexual attractions outside of marriage. That doesn't mean we must act on them. Celibacy is a legitimate option. Maybe one day you will marry a person of the opposite sex who truly understands your situation and whom you love and loves you. I do not know.

But just as the prideful man does not lose his pride overnight, no Christian loses their desire for sex in a sinful manner. The heart is deceitful. What you feel is a legitimate longing-- a longing for intimacy and love-- but the problem with sin is that it seeks to fulfill a legitimate longing in an illegitimate way (with the desires flesh instead of the desire of God).

Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me." What a difficult command. Remember, Paul wrote of the "thorn in his flesh" which the LORD had chosen not to take away. Sanctification is a long, hard, process for the Christian. BUT it is NOT HOPELESS, we have a great, loving, God. He has compassion for us. The Father wants us to be what we were made to be-- not what we feel, solely, but who we were chosen to be: his flock, his people, his children.

To further expand what Paul said I quote him:

> So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
>
>(2 Corinthians 12:7-10 ESV)


I pray these resources may help you and that you may find support among good Christian friends. God shares love through people. And now that I have friends supporting me, I can't imagine going it alone.
Telling my parents and best friends from Church was the biggest help for me. I told them last Summer.

EDIT: clarification and addition of a little bit about my experience.

EDIT 2: For a scholarly look at what scripture says I'd recommend "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" by Robert Gagnon. It answers many of the revisionist interpretations thoroughly.

A shorter article of his explaining his defense of the male-female requirement of marriage is found here.

EDIT 3: Formatting.

Knuth 3:16.

Comparative studies. From my reading, they generally assume the author knew of the parallel source and wrote with it in mind. Then compare/contrast the similarities and differences and deduce theological meaning based off the differences, i.e. why did the author change this part of the story.

This is a good summary book if you are looking for direct examples. Also, John Walton has written on this extensively. K.A. Kitchen is has also written on this, specifically on Egypotology and Hittite vassal-suzerain treaties. He actually contends the Doc-Hypothesis is erroneous since he dates the Pentateuch based on its convenental structure and its similarities with known Hittite treaties -- but that's another whole ball of wax.

EDIT: spelling, grammar

TL;DR it's by textual analysis and one of the best treatments of your particular inquiry is from Bart Erhman's Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

You should be able to attain a copy through inter-library loan. If not, I've got a digital copy that I may consider sharing with you.

If you want a Conservative Scholarly treatment of the problem of the Canon, I'd suggest reading Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger. He also has a series of lectures on the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) mobile app called "The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon" that are really good (here is the course syllabus: PDF warning. This is a tough subject, but if you really want to dig deep into it Michael Kruger is the go-to scholar for a Conservative Reformed approach to the Canon of scripture.

>in the opinion of modern scholars

In the opinion of some modern scholars. The opinions to which you give voice are hardly universal and they're trending toward a minority among contemporary scholars. Such views were much more widely held at the beginning of the 20th Century, for instance, than they are today.

Among the scholars to which you can refer to good scholarship and a less Modernist point of view are N.T. Wright and Scott Hahn. Both are (as far as I know) well regarded scholars of the Bible. There are others but those are the two that spring to mind.

>the disciples didn't really believe Jesus was God (if he existed)

I think this is false on the face of it, and even Bart Ehrman concludes that it was their belief in the resurrection that convinced Jesus' disciples that Jesus was God in the years immediately following the crucifixion. See here for a radio interview with Ehrman about his book, How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman courted the disfavor of his atheist admirers in one of his other recent books, where he took aim at the Jesus mythicists, arguing that Jesus was definitely an historical character.

Again, I would refer you to N.T. Wright and his works on the historicity of the Bible.

> the Bible is a collage of stolen myths

Once again, this is just flatly false and is only believed by the most extreme "scholars" in the Jesus Mythicist camp (as far as I know).

>My second question: is there a term for someone who studies Biblical topics in general? As in one who studies ancient near-east cultures, comparative mythology, languages, Biblical source documents, Jewish literature, archaeology, and other "Biblical Humanities"? That's what I like.

I don't know about a "term", but check out Scott Hahn, the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, this book (if you can find it), and especially (for this question), I would recommend John Walton and his books, The Lost World of Genesis One and Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible.

I'd argue that Christianity is also batshit insane, despite how culturally accustomed we may be to that particular type of insanity, but I take your point.

I can't claim to understand Gödel's religious views and as I've said, without any supporting arguments for it, I'm not interested in his religious views. But I think it's worth pointing out that by their own admission very few theists believe what they believe based on evidence and reasoning, instead it's faith which underlies most theists' beliefs. Childhood indoctrination strongly insulates religious beliefs from critical analysis or questioning. Even intelligent, well educated theists can compartmentalise their religious ideas and protect them from the rigorous treatment they'd give to any other ideas they hold.

I suspect that this also applies in Gödel's case, although since (to my knowledge) he never wrote about his religious beliefs, we'll never know. If you're interested, Donald Knuth is an extremely well-known and respected computer scientist who arguably rivals Gödel on matters of logic. He's also a theist who has written about the basis for his religious beliefs and a textual analysis of the bible.

To answer these types of questions, your best bet is to read just about anything by Bart Ehrman, for example you could try Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Ehrman is a very distinguished Biblical scholar and religious studies Prof at UNC-Chapel Hill, and knows his stuff, plus his works are generally accessible.

I would recommend the work of Michael
Kruger like Canon Revisited or The Question of Canon.

Beyond that, a classic is Warfield's The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible. Maybe even Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

> I believe that if Jesus was a real person, he taught love and forgiveness...He just wasn't the son of a god

Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible? It is a compilation of the King James Bible, with all supernatural events cut out, only leaving the teachings and morals of Christianity; made by Thomas Jefferson himself.

EDIT: You can buy a copy here

This is disputed.

It doesn't. The arguments that have come about recently that the Bible really means a certain kind of gay sex or is talking about a particular relationship dynamic (i.e. pederasty) are completely foreign to the text. If you want to read up on this, I recommend Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice, which is pretty much the standard academic monograph on the subject.

This is sort of one of my pet areas of interest, I've tried to read both the secular side and the Christian side, in the end I think these are the best books on the subject:

Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament - He is one of the world's top Egyptologists and wrote this book to defend the OT.

https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962

James Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai - another one of the world's top Egyptologists.

https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0195155467/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660677&sr=1-1&keywords=israel+in+egypt

Provan, Long, and Longman's Biblical History of Israel is very good too:

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-History-Israel-Second-ebook/dp/B01CUKCXFW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660730&sr=1-1&keywords=a+biblical+history+of+israel%2C+second+edition

Also, James Hoffmeier edited another book that I would recommend to any Catholic interested in biblical studies:

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Matters-Matter-Faith-Postmodern-ebook/dp/B007IJY9YO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660787&sr=1-1&keywords=do+historical+matters+matter+to+faith

There are many bad books out there, but these are very good and trustworthy by good scholars.

Many people will argue from a book called The Bible Unearthed that the Scriptures are not reliable, but quite frankly the arguments used in there are not very good. Kenneth Kitchen refutes them pretty in depth in his book.

If you want, you can get a Jefferson for a Hamilton.

>It's not like in Mark's "lost" ending Jesus stayed dead

Right. That was The Gospel according to Thomas Jefferson.

>or came back as a zombie and terrorized Judea

Not sure who that's "the Gospel according to", but I'm interested.

This is similar-but-different, but a 50,000 foot view of the storyline particularly with a theological angle on the history of covenants -- "The Christ of the Covenants," by O. Palmer Robertson.

If this is something you're interested in, I strongly recommend the book The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus by Robert Funk.

Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics (2001) is a strong academic text that argues against your assertion.

> tell me all of the reasons why the bible is flawed

That's rather a tall order. There are many perspectives from which it is flawed, and within many of those, a great many problems.

Are you after things like contradictions? Then see this question in the FAQ

Are you after finding out how the New Testament was altered again and again, and why? Then you may want to try to get the book Misquoting Jesus

Are you interested in common mistaken claims about and hidden contradictions in the New Testament? Maybe you'd enjoy Jesus, Interrupted

Are you interested in finding out which parts of the new testament were written by people claiming to be someone else? Then try Forged

Are you interested in whether there's solid evidence Jesus existed at all? Then try Nailed

Are you interested in refuations of many Christian ideas by a bunch of different authors? Then try The Christian Delusion

and so on and so on...

> I also plan on telling my family about my new found Athiesm soon so, any advice in that regards would be greatly appreciated.

Please read the advice in the FAQ. This is not a decision to be taken lightly.

---

> why Athiesm is your preferred route

That's atheism (small a, e before i). It's not a choice, any more than I chose not to believe in leprechauns or Santa or flying monkeys. At some point I found I didn't have belief in these propositions. Discovering there weren't any gods I believed in made me without-god-belief. That's literally a-theism.

I'll start with theology (broadly construed) first. There's no particular order, but I've separated them into "lighter" and "heavier" categories. I'm happy to talk about why I think each book is a "must read" you want. I'll try to come back later and give some fiction recommendations.


Lighter theology:

Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith (top recommendation if you haven't read it).

Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw.

Knowing God by J.I. Packer.

Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul

Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin by Cornelius Plantinga.

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill.

[Rejoicing in Lament: Wrestling with Incurable Cancer and Life in Christ] (http://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Lament-Wrestling-Incurable-Cancer/dp/1587433583) by J. Todd Billings

Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship

When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins.

Literally everything by CS Lewis

Any of Zondervan's Counterpoints series. My current favorite in the series is Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy by Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke


Heavier Theology

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon

Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson.

Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by R. Michael Allen and Scott Swain

Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader by Allen

The abridged version of Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavink.

Systematic Theology

A popular theory in mainstream biblical scholarship states that the OT was edited at least 4 times from pre-existing material by the "authors" designated E and J (because they call God Elohim and Jah, respectively) and redactors designated Deuteronomaic and Priestly.

See...um...the field of biblical scholarship, for instance r/AcademicBiblical, or this popular book:

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

See "Documentary Hypothesis"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism_(biblical_studies)

Yes

3:16 by Knuth

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

“Love One Another, As I Have Loved You.”

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same."

I highly recommend reading up on ancient Mesopotamia. For example, I am reading this right now. I have been an atheist for most of my life, but feeling kinda under siege right now and this is so refreshing.

There are like thousands of years of various texts that sound just like The Bible regarding what the various kings and/or gods of the various cities did. It gets pretty hilarious, but it is all so boilerplate.

IMO picking various points inside the framework and arguing against them is a waste of time. Just put the whole thing where it belongs. Just a cult of one middle eastern god that got out of control. Just like every other middle eastern god. Nothing to see there. Not even the most interesting god.

>https://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hypothesis-Umberto-Cassuto/dp/9657052351 Here's a great book that debunks the DH on what you're describing. Just blocking off names by YKVK and Elokim is not a thoughtful argument. Both names connote something different so their context matters, as do the other names of God laced throughout the Torah kEl, kEl Shakkai, and so on.

Umberto Cassuto died 1951. With all due respect, his work is quite outdated.

Tanhan, seriously?

There was no council that decided it. Hippo simply affirmed what was already in use. Kruger is literally the guy on the canon right now. He has written several books on the subject.

There are several books on the topic:

• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by Karen Armstrong
  
  
• Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard Elliott Friedman
  
  
• The Bible with Sources Revealed, by Richard Elliott Friedman
  
  
• Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, by Bart D. Ehrman
  
  etc.
  
  >Did they know that parts of what they were writing were false, or were they writing about what they had been told and believed?
  
  The bible consists of oral traditions being written down, people adding and rewriting stuff, as well as complete forgeries to serve political agendas.

>Illiterate

The fact that the Old Testament exists proves that false.

>scientifically ignorant

Science as a discipline didn't exist until thousands of years later. So yes, they were obviously scientifically ignorant, but that's a strange standard for a blanket sentence of "ignorance" for an entire civilization.

>superstitious

First, that depends on your beliefs. Second, every culture is filled with superstitious people.

>violent, reactionary, tribal

Sounds like America 2019. Yes, they were indeed human with many human follies.

If this is really your entire view of ancient Hebrew culture (and perhaps all ancient cultures?) I honestly feel sorry for you. It's a common view from people who have read the Old Testament but failed to actually understand it in its cultural context. I suggest reading The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter, and excellent new translation and commentary of the Pentateuch. You don't have to believe the stories are "true" to acknowledge that labeling ancient Hebrew civilization with a blank "ignorant savages" can only come, itself, from a place of ignorance.

To be honest -- and I promise that I'm making this as not-a-copout as I can -- my feeling is that if you're even taking the position that the entirety of the Bible is authentic and accurate, there's such a gulf of understanding between us that trying to bridge it would be well outside of the scope of a few posts.

I'll try to summarize as best I can, here.

Old Testament: The Torah was not given to Moses by God. Large portions of "God's laws" existed in other cultures before even the Jews claim that they were given to Moses. Like, word-for-word, verse for verse, verbatim. Sometimes with minor changes. The Law is clearly not entirely divine in origin, if any of it is (personally, I think I see the hand of God in places in Deuteronomy, but I'm not sure). Similarly, a great deal of the OT is founded upon pre-existing myths from other cultures in Mesopotamia. We're able to discern several different agents at work in the text, including people who clearly have very different conceptions of God, writing at different times, as well as any number of redactors. In some cases, it's pretty clear that the final version of the text was based upon a later writer completely failing to understand the original writer. In some cases, multiple incompatible versions of stories were combined into the text serially by redactors who clearly had no idea that the text was supposed to be "perfect". Check out the stories about how David met Saul, for example. Also, a lot of the traditional interpretations of things came about when the Jews noted the many flaws, inconsistencies, and absurdities in the Torah, and invented all sorts of amazing (and often ridiculous) explanations for them.

For more on this, I cannot recommend highly enough James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. It's written by a very intellectually honest orthodox Jew, which is very valuable to me because it's as unbiased as possible while still being sympathetic and open to the theist view. No joke, I will buy this for you in a heartbeat if you send me an address. It will radically transform and improve your understanding of these things.

As to the Gospels, you ought to be able to find any number of websites describing its inaccuracies and contradictions. Of course, there's a strain of fundamentalism that insists, through astounding intellectual dishonesty, that there are no contradictions. To assert this, one must use a definition of "contradiction" that would be prima facie absurd in any other context. The differing accounts of Jesus' birth, the date of the Last Supper, and so, so much more. Also, many of the accounts of Jesus' life are clearly, shall we say, modified to make the points that the authors cared about, such as Jesus's genealogy falling into nice round numbers that it actually didn't. Also, a lot of details seem to have been invented after the fact to give the impression that Jesus fulfilled prophecies that he likely didn't (As a Christian this doesn't bother me; I don't see the OT as inerrant, so it's not surprising to me that many of its prophecies were wrong). For example, the narrative wherein the family has to travel for a census (never happened) so that Jesus could be in the city that prophecy said the Messiah would be born in (he probably wasn't).

For more on this subject... I like Marcus Borg. Actually, this book by him and N.T. Wright does a great job examining such matters from multiple perspectives, as it's written in a format where they disagree with each other and give their own takes on things. Borg represents (IMO) rational but honest scholarship taken too far, whereas Wright represents a more traditional but still informed perspective. This book covers many important topics, such as many of the miracles, the nativity, the resurrection, and so on. If you want to be able to defend yourself against atheist attacks, buy this book if only for Wright's sections. But read Borg's, too. They'll open your eyes to so much.

Okay, now let's talk epistles. The wikipedia article on the subject of the Pauline Epistles is a great jumping-off point. For a more in-depth treatment, I really liked Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted though it definitely deals a lot with the gospels as well.

I'd like to make two more points in closing. The first is that there's just no reason at all to think that the Bible is accurate and authentic in its entirety. None. It doesn't even claim to be. It can't. It wasn't fully compiled until hundreds of years after its constituent parts were written, therefore it logically cannot be self-referential. When (not) Paul wrote that all scripture is God-breathed, he couldn't have been including the books that hadn't been written yet. Also, as you'll see if you read Kugel's book, much of scripture is clearly not inspired. Some would argue that it's still the book that God wanted us to end up with, but that raises the question of why there are so many different versions. Some bibles have books that others don't. Some translate things in contradictory ways to others. There is just no way to suggest that there's some kind of special force watching out for this book; we'd first have to posit that there's a single "right" version and then ask how we know which that is.

Secondly, consider so many of the things in the Bible that are, to put it mildly, inconvenient. Are iron chariots God's Achilles heel (Judges 1:19)? Why didn't any contemporary writers (including the other gospel authors) say anything about the zombie horde that broke loose in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)? Oh, and let me tell you a story:

God made the world and he saw that it was good. Except, it wasn't. So he decides that he's going to kill everyone except for one good guy and his family. So two (or seven) of every kind of animal gets crammed into -- well, we'll skip this part, you know it. But anyway, afterward, God realizes that he's made a huuuuuuge mistake and promises not to do it again.

And that is where rainbows come from.

harold bloom's book of j has the J source isolated, with a rather interesting and unique translation by david rosenberg. the commentary from bloom surrounding it is pretty interesting too, though may not really be up to date on the last scholarship and really rather fringe. for instance, he argues that J was a woman.

edit: it looks like rosenberg has a more complete translation that separates J and E, leaves out P, R, L, and D.

First of all, can I just say how much I love giving and receiving book recommendations? I was a religious studies major in college (and was even a T.A. in the World Religions class) so, this is right up my alley. So, I'm just going to take a seat in front of my book cases...

General:

1. A History of God by Karen Armstrong
   
   
2. The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong
   
   
3. Myths: gods, heroes, and saviors by Leonard Biallas (highly recommended)
   
   
4. Natural History of Religion by David Hume
   
   
5. Beyond Tolerance by Gustav Niebuhr
   
   
6. Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel (very highly recommended, completely shaped my view on pluralism and interfaith dialogue)
   
   
7. The Evolution of God by Robert Wright
   
   Christianity:
   
   
8. Tales of the End by David L. Barr
   
   
9. The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
   
   
10. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
11. The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan
    
    
12. Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton Mack
    
    
13. Jesus in America by Richard Wightman Fox
    
    
14. The Five Gospels by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (highly recommended)
    
    
15. Remedial Christianity by Paul Alan Laughlin
    
    Judaism:
    
    
16. The Jewish Mystical Tradition by Ben Zion Bokser
    
    
17. Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman
    
    Islam:
    
    
18. Muhammad by Karen Armstrong
    
    
19. No God but God by Reza Aslan
    
    
20. Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells
    
    Buddhism:
    
    
21. Buddha by Karen Armstrong
    
    
22. Entering the Stream ed. Samuel Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn
    
    
23. The Life of Milarepa translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa
    
    
24. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers
    
    
25. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones compiled by Paul Reps (a classic in Western approached to Buddhism)
    
    
26. Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams (if you're at all interested in Buddhist doctrine and philosophy, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not reading this book)
    
    Taoism:
    
    
27. The Essential Chuang Tzu trans. by Sam Hamill & J.P. Seaton
    
    Atheism:
    
    
28. Atheism by Julian Baggini
    
    
29. The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud
    
    
30. Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht
    
    
31. When Atheism Becomes Religion by Chris Hedges
    
    
32. Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

How do they know? Granted, there is no direct evidence for Moses or the Exodus independent of the Bible, but it is unrealistic to expect to find direct evidence for everyone who passed through Egypt over three thousand years ago.

It would be a real stretch to argue that we can prove the Exodus historically with such scant information, but James K. Hoffmeier makes a strong case in Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford University Press, 1996) that, rather, it fits in with what we know about the period; there is no reason to deny the Exodus so compelling that we can be called unreasonable for accepting it.

For real, check out the King James Version if you're looking to read it for artistry. (The language is antiquated, but that's part of the charm, and it's got a rhythm to it.)

However, if you just want to read some crazy, millenia-old shit told in a really great way, check out Robert Alter's translation of The Five Books of Moses: It's got some of the wildest stuff in it, and Alter translates it into more like a dictated spoken-word album than a dusty old tome.

not exactly the same thing, but comparative linguist and scholar of the hebrew language robert alter, inspired in part by the biblical-sounding-but-modern works of those such as cormac mccarthy, recently released a very good and heavily footnoted translation of the five books of moses.

among other things, it removes the conjugation 'but' from passages, which is not a construct in the dialect the bible was written in. i own it but have not read it, because i am in the middle of another dense book. i expect it to be fascinating.

The wiki for this sub suggests the following:

• How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now
  
• The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
  
• Age of Reason by Thomas Paine - A starting point of many irreconcilable contradictions and errors that lend many scholars to views on multiple authorship.
  
  If any moderators are reading I personally propose adding this to the Wiki, it's excellent:
  
  
• How to Read the Bible by Marc Zvi Brettler also published as How to Read the Jewish Bible.

A lot of what's been listed is devotional stuff, not critical stuff.

For a good critical intro to the New Testament, try Raymond Browns Introduction to the New Testament

Or Bart Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Just about anything by Geza Vermes is also very good.

For the Old Testament, I'd recommend James Kugel's How to Read the Bible

or even Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

Sure thing!

If you want something accessible on a college level that I have used in my courses, I'd recommend The Hebrew Bible for Beginners by Lohr and Kaminsky.

Another magnificent but weightier text that touches directly on source critical issues and the history of scholarly theories is James Kugel's How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now.

Those are both broad surveys for beginners. On the more narrow question of dating and good for someone with a bit of Hebrew background, an important new-ish book is How Old is the Hebrew Bible: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study by Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten. They do a great job of summarizing the current state of the question. It's the closest thing I have to offer as a consensus or mainstream view.

For a more "minimalist" or skeptical view that focuses on the historical origins of biblical narratives, I would recommend beginners take a look at The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.

Later this summer, I am really interested to see John Barton's forthcoming book A History of the Bible: The Story of the World's Most Influential Book. I haven't seen it, but he's great and it seems like a serious piece of scholarship.

So my comments above show my linking skills, but I will do my best in advance of the report coming out monday (already advance reviews are mixed to break down this issue...

As regards the Covenant of Works ("COW"), was it, in any sense, "republished" in the mosaic covenant? Republicationists say yes (hence there name). However, if you have read any John Murray, you'll know he objected to the very term COW in favor for a Covenant of Life, between Adam and God. The reason being is that Murray and his spiritual successors in the anti-repub camp see a Grace element in EVERY single of the covenant administrations (for more on the various covenants, please see O Palmer Robertson's classic work.) By calling it a covenant of works, they feel, runs the risk of downplaying the grace in the COW. Republicationists do not deny a grace element in the COW, nor any of the subsequent covenants, but you can see the problems from this short paragraph, when one side won't even allow for a COW, when our standards refer to it in those exact terms.

I refer to above again to the idea of no smoking gun in this case. In other words, one can claim a repub position, or an anti-repub position, and maintain themselves as orthodox reformed.

And as some are talking about Kline, it could be reduced to that in its simplist form, if you don't want to get into the covenant issues. Are you for Kline (like me?). Then you like repub (he advocated it). Against Kline, you probably argue against it.

Whether Repub is Biblical or not, is of course the question at hand. There's a lot to this. For Kline's more important work, one should work through his lectures on their commute or something, they are worth it, I have gotten through quite a few of these. I have [his book] (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Prologue-Foundations-Covenantal-Worldview/dp/1597525642) in my own personal archives, but anyway, that is the best I can frame all this. Any of you want to correct or add, please feel free. Love to all the reformed redditors! Read the report on Monday when it comes out, and we'll see how accurate I am haha

I'd say that it may be out of the scope of this particular project.

I can't imagine anyone who would recommend AGAINST learning Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, but it's a pretty big undertaking (as is learning any new language). You have the added obstacle of being culturally and chronologically separated from original authors, meaning that you still ought to seek input from "experts" concerning the meaning of a particular passage (failure to do so can lead to this.).

While I'm not a mod or originator of this project, my understanding is that it is at least partially aimed at "Bible Novices," who may not have the time/motivation/background to commit to learning two ancient languages.

That all said, it is possible for neophytes to do "spot translations" of certain passages. One of my heroes, Don Knuth embarked on a translation project where he used resources like Strong's Concordance to do his own translations, but he has also commented that the project took several hours a week for a single verse.

Now, when I rule the world (and I will someday), churches everywhere will offer courses in Biblical languages to their congregants, simply because there is a world of benefits and few drawbacks to doing so. However, I don't think it's an appropriate exercise here.

After doing enough research of ancient civilizations and taking one class on all of them, these are the best books in my opinion that give a general overview to start with when researching, depending on the civilization you are researching. Then once you have these and look through them, you can make a good library of least 350 books about the ancient world like I have. I hope this helps and if you want help picking books, just ask. Also these books are written by the authorities in their subjects so they will be good research materials.

Ancient Rome: Christopher Mackay’s Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History

Ancient Greece: Sarah Pomeroy’s Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History

Ancient Mesopotamia: Marc Van De Mieroop’s A History of Ancient Egypt

Ancient Egypt: Marc Van De Mieroop’s A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC

Ancient Phoenicia: Maria Aubet’s The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade

Ancient Carthage: Dexter Hoyo’s The Carthaginians (Peoples of the Ancient World)

Ancient Hellenistic World: R. Malcom Errington’s A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 - 30 Bc

Ancient Silk Road Area: Xinru Liu’s The Silk Road in World History (The New Oxford World History)

Ancient Persia: Maria Brosius’ The Persians (Peoples of the Ancient World)

Ancient Hittites: O.R. Gurney’s The Hittites

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. Can't go wrong with anything by F.F. Bruce imo hahah.

Metzger has a book on the subject that I haven't read yet but what to. He's one of the best scholars of the last 50 years.

Kruger is a prof at RTS so this is one that probably has a reformed bent to it. Haven't read this one yet either, but it is suppose to be good.

A lot of good comments here. I suggest you read a good book on the history of the canon, though. You’re operating with a few misconceptions.

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433505002/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_b8YnDbAKH12AB

Good books on the development of NT canon:

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books

An interesting program refuting common objections to Sola Scriptura: Dr. Michael Kruger on the Dividing Line

The academic community knows and it isn't as homogeneous as it is portrayed online. However, the academics that are cited by internet "theologians" are operating under a few faulty assumptions and will view all evidence in light of those assumptions. One of those assumptions is that ancient Israel was no different than any other contemporary civilization. They make the assumption with absolutely no evidence, and you can google all day but you'll never find anything objective supporting it, that Israel and the Canaanites were essentially the same civilization until we "suddenly became monotheistic" in Babylon and established a monotheistic temple cult under Ezra. Then the scripture was written backwards to make Judaism monotheistic. To me, that would imply that you wouldn't find henotheism in scripture, but there you go. That's the theory. The TLDR would be that they know, but don't care because they rewrite histories scripture to support their claims. It's circular reasoning. Here's a book that's relatively cheap that outlines the fundamental errors for biblical criticism. http://www.amazon.com/The-Documentary-Hypothesis-Umberto-Cassuto/dp/9657052351 It's a little outdated by now, but I still link it for a few reasons. 1) The fundamental theories have never changed. The specifics have changed to "correct" the assumptions that were disproved by archaeological evidence, but the basics of the theory have never changed. 2) that book only focuses on disproving the basic premises of the documentary hypothesis and therefore takes apart all of modern biblical criticism without having to address each specific applied instance while still touching every major specific instance still cited by internet theologians, and 3) it is written in lecture format which makes it highly readable and very easy to understand. If a more complicated point is being made, it'll explain it briefly and then defer to another book. But the most important points are extremely clear in the book.

I've heard great things about this book, might want to give it a look as it may help with your question: On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802803962/?coliid=I349U78PJ5CWDI&colid=2KQI2IA4VRDZA&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

>I've googled that and came up with nothing reliable I'd definitely be very interested in your source

I'm always willing to bet my academic and personal integrity as an ANE historian.

>>From a past reply on the problems with the Exodus Narrative

>The Exodus and actual Egyptology.

>In Search of 'Ancient Israel': A Study in Biblical Origins

>Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History

>The Oxford History of the Biblical World


>The section in the third link just below where I've had it link too about difficulties placing Egypt within the Exodus narrative is also fun.

I would also recommend to you two of Marc Van De Mieroops works:

A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC, 2nd Edition and A History of Ancient Egypt

Both are fairly accessible college entry level works on ANE and Egyptian history.

If you are interested in warfare, this magazine can very helpful:

http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/cms/karwansaray/ancient-warfare/about.html

For general history, these books could be of use:

A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC: http://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Near-East-3000/dp/1405149116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380612184&sr=1-1&keywords=ancient+middle+east

The Greeks in Bactria and India: http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-Bactria-Cambridge-Library-Collection/dp/1108009417/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380612297&sr=1-3&keywords=bactria

Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture: http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-History-Culture/dp/032142297X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380612365&sr=1-3&keywords=Ancient+middle+east+history

Hope this is useful to you.

I'd suggest checking out the translation of Umberto Cassuto's lectures on DH.

You should also read The Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassuto for the other side of the argument.

As far as forgeries go, Bart Ehrman has a good book about forgeries in the NT called Forged. This isn't just his view, but the view of many other scholars as well. The arguments are quite convincing, which involve dating, differences in theology, and differences in writing style. He also discusses counter arguments and the use of secretaries.

The one I've heard the most about for Exodus is Israel in Egypt.

How to Read the Bible by James Kugel.

Not a panelist, but a masters student who has taken a course on the Bible's cultural context. Here are the books I found the most helpful:

• Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, by John H. Walton
  
• The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, by Henri Frankfort and others
  
• The Ancient Orient, by Wolfram von Soden

Ask J. https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

Absolutely fantastic read and opened a lot of eyes.

I like to tailor my recommendations to what I know about people, so a request like this leaves me a little at a disadvantage. Basically, I believe that there may be no such thing as a universally applicable book, and to that end, whether or not a book is really a "must-read" for any given person depends on the circumstances of that person's life. So what I'm going to give you instead is this: a list of the ten books that I've read that I think (at the moment) have the best chance of having an impact on any random English-speakers life. Make of it what you will.

Ahem. In no particular order:

1. The Bridge at San Luis Rey, by Thornton Wilder
   
   
2. Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad
   
   
3. The Spirit Catches You and You Fell Down, by Anne Fadiman
   
   
4. The Consolation of Philosophy, by Boethius
   
   
5. We With to Inform You that Tomorrow We Well Be Killed With Our Families, by Philip Gourevitch.
   
   
6. The Theban Plays of Sophocles.
   
   
7. The Bell, by Iris Murdoch.
   
   
8. The Book of J, by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg.
   
   
9. Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative, by Herbert Mason.
   
   
10. The Street of Crocodiles, by Bruno Schulz.

It's disheartening that you've delved into name-calling here. If it continues, I will not respond.

Historical Jesus shows up in the Bible (though he is also occluded by ahistorical narrativization and theology - I suggest the Jesus Seminar's The Five Gospels if you want an introduction to the topic; I still refer to it frequently.) and thus your juxtaposition of "historical Jesus" and "Biblical Jesus" was laughable. Hence "lol."

I was certainly not "trying to instigate a fight" by pointing out that Jesus was far more radical than he is given credit for, being that this is a subreddit for other radicals who would be generally predisposed to agree with me/ enjoy the description. The one "instigating the fight" here is you, but nice attempt to gaslight.

I don't see a theological problem with biological evolution by natural selection, and I highly recommend this book for you Young-Earth-Creationists.

Elements of Exegesis the guy is a moderate evangelical, but the ideas here are pretty good.

How to read the Bible for all its worth by Fee and Stuart Great intro to reading the different genres of scripture. Two evangelical scholars.

Invitation to Biblical Interpretation Written by two heavy hitting scholars, it's a big book with a ton of info on how to interpret all parts of scripture.

Grasping God's Word Probably a good place to start as it is a workbook/textbook rolled into one. You get a lot of great info with tons of exercises.

We could probably do that. Maybe one thread a week, or less often. It's a balance -- to answer the difficult questions but not get so taken over by them that we neglect the other 95% of the Bible. I assume that there are also many good answers to your questions online.

Yes, as others have mentioned we'd have to look at the context and the type of literature, etc. (See "How to read the Bible for all its worth" )

Copy/pasting from a previous comment:
____
... thought I'd share what "How to Read the Bible" has to say about it.

After quoting Exodus 21:22-25

"At first glance it might seem that "there is no mishap" means that mother and baby are fine. But no ancient interpreter read this passage that way. The reason was simple. Normally, in the case of an accident, if no harm resulted, then no fine would be due; if both mother and baby emerged without a scratch, why should the fighter be punished? He meant no harm to her and no harm had been caused. So something must have happened. Here is how the passage was translated in the third century BCE by the Jewish makers of the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Pentateuch:

>If two men are fighting and pregnant woman is struck in her belly, and her child comes out not fully formed, he shall pay a fine. As the woman's husband shall impose, he shall pay it with a valuation. But if it is fully formed, he shall give a soul for a soul (etc.)

This translation assumes that, no matter what, the accident described resulted in the death of the fetus. Then what could the Bible have meant by distinguishing between a case in which "there is no mishap" and the one in which there is? It was referring, these translators concluded, to the state of development of the unborn child. That is, if such an accident and subsequent miscarriage should occur early in the woman's pregnancy, at a time when the fetus is "not fully formed", then the man cannot truly be deemed to have killed another human being. He did cause a spontaneous abortion and thereby killed a potential human being, so he should definitely be fined - but he is not guilty of murder. (Goes on to say it is murder only if a poorly defined 'fully formed' fetus)

However, there was an entirely different way of understanding this same passage. Here is how Jerome translated it in the Vulgate, which was to become the approved translation of the Roman Catholic Church:

>If men were fighting and someone struck a pregnant woman and she miscarried but she herself lived, he will be subject to a fine, as much as the woman's husband shall request and as the judges decree. If, however, her death shall follow, let him pay a soul for a soul . . ..

According to this understanding, the "mishap" is the death of the mother. That is, in either scenario, the fetus dies - apparently it does not matter in Jerome's interpretation whether the accident occurred in the first month or the ninth month of pregnancy."

end of excerpt

The text does go on to explain that in ancient days it was not unusual, during a difficult pregnancy and delivery, for a fetus to have to be killed inside the womb. It would not have been considered unlawful to save the mother's life.

He also mentions discussion in the Dead Sea Scrolls where they debate whether sacrificing a pregnant animal counted as 1 or 2 deaths.

I've found the OT background commentary to be a helpful place to begin. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830814191

You could then move to Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801027500

This is much more in depth, but could be another good place to go if you end up looking for more. The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039185/

[All this assumes the scholarly standard JEDP source criticism. I applaud the Jewish poster who input the talmudic sources which corroborate this info, but work under vastly different assumptions]

It is widely understood by OT scholars to be addressing the heavenly council. Gen1 and Gen2 are two different creation stories. Gen1 was written at a later date (the P source), than Gen2, which was a much earlier source. The majority of Gen2-11 is attested to be whole blocks of earlier sources, interspersed with editorial changes/flourishes. Many scholars suggest that Gen1 was written in a typological fashion to describe Eden as a divinely ordered temple (the authors being priests). And in a temple there is never just one liturgical actor. The P source, being much later had a developed sense of other divine beings (the academic definition of "monotheism" being an ideal type, and a red herring -- there are almost zero actual "strict monotheists" societies ever recorded in the world) in the heavenly court.

As an example "the serpent" is not "the devil" or even "the Satan". The serpent is merely a member of the divine court, punished for its actions. "The Satan" doesn't make an appearance until Job (which is actually written very very early, around the times of many of the original Genesis sources [chp2-11]) and is not "the devil" but merely another divine court actor -- the narrative explicitly tells us that Satan has an audience at the court with God.

All this is scholarly work of understanding who, when, and with what material the original authors were working with. This is not an act of Christian (or Jewish, as the Talmud self-attests as) interpretation. That said, any Christian attempt at interpreting this as emphatically, or foreshadowing the Trinity has their work cut out for them hermeneutically. Orthodox and Catholic traditions generally lean on metaphysical interpretations that can point to a Trinity, but such a move is merely indirect. Mainline protestant traditions don't attempt that interpretation and for the most part have left behind metaphysics (as they're mostly American, or heavily influenced by American pragmatism or liberal protestantism). Evangelicals are really the only group who attempt such an interpretation.

I would recommend "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible" for the task

Edit: link -- http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342141393&sr=8-2&keywords=john+walton

> Also, is it true to say that the God we're referring to here is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent?



I'll start with this point because it's a necessary assumption for this discussion. All three adjectives certainly apply here.



> Why did he create Adam and Eve with a desire to be independent of God?



God created man with free will, the ability to abide or reject him, and this seems to naturally lead to man choosing himself over God. I won't say that God wanted man to make that decision after creating him, but I believe He absolutely knew that man would make the decision. One thing I've always wondering about was if somehow Adam had refrained from sin, and his descendants were still living in that garden with the three, how long would it be until someone decided to take hold of the fruit and disobey? It seems inevitable in the long run; however, even taking the garden account as allegory, I think it illustrates something we all see in ourselves: even by our own internal scale of right and wrong, we still make bad decisions at times.



In God's omniscience, the sacrifice to be made by Jesus Christ that would atone for mankind's sin was known to Him before the creation of the world (cf. 2 Timothy 1:9, Revelation 13:8, and [1 Peter 1:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter 1:20;&version=31;)). So this opens another question that I don't purport to have an answer for: if God knew before creation that mankind would sin and such atonement would be necessary, why bother moving forward with the plan?



I'm reading through a book entitled Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, and it's full of evidence that while other Mesopotamian cultures believed that the gods depended in some way on humans (either needing worship or the amenities provided in the temple and its offerings), the Israelites understood that God in no way depended on them. And yet, at the same time, OT writers were asking why God created man (cf. Psalm 8:3-6, Job 7:16-18, and commentary).



When asked to explain God's perfection, apologist Ravi Zacharias is credited as responding, "God is the only being in existence, the reason for whose existence lies within himself." I agree with the succinct response, and believe that God's lack of a cause, dependence or origin means that He would be the same with or without creation or mankind. While I don't believe God created man because he was lonely or wanted to exert control over some lesser beings, I do recognize that God desires that we fellowship with him (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:9). But I honestly don't believe I can comprehend His motivation for creating us in his omniscience.



> If so, why didn't he just stop the snake from talking to them? Also, if God knew everything, then he knew that all this would happen, so why did he bother setting up this whole situation in the first place?



Could God have sheltered Adam and Eve from outside influences in the garden? Absolutely. Would this have, as I hypothesized in the first paragraph above, prevented man from sinning at all? I can't say. If God had removed every allowance for man to exercise his free will, effectively filtering out every situation where man was presented with a choice, I suppose we could ask if that would really be free will.



I allude to the second question in the preceding paragraphs and confess that, while I understand facets of the relationship between God and man, I can't answer "why" with certitude. Truthfully, I do wonder about the question, though, and even right now it brings to mind the question of why God allowed Satan to victimize Job in order to demonstrate the man's faithfulness.



This also seems to beg the question if it was man, the snake, or even God that was ultimately responsible. Yes, man sinned by taking the fruit, but the serpent is accredited with propositioning Eve, and if we go back further it was God himself who placed the tree there. To refer back to a verse cited in my original post, James 1:13-15 tells us that man is just as capable of tempting himself with his own desires. Meanwhile, the character and very definition of God excludes Him as a mechanism for temptation.



> Why didn't he just give them omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence so they could freely do whatever they wanted and not have to go through all this drama?



Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions, but this seems to ask why God would not just make man as He is, rather than in His image (sharing some qualities, but certainly not equal). Consulting varying definitions of omnipotence, I came across the omnipotence paradox which asks if any all-powerful being could do such a thing as to limit itself. Biblically, I think the omnipotence paradox is at least partially answered in the personhood of Christ, as Philippians 2:5-8 records him setting aside his Godly glory for the likeness of man on earth.



But your question seems to approach the paradox from the opposite direction and ask if an omnipotent being could create other, omnipotent beings. Scripture presents qualities of God that we might take to be limits (doing my best not to sound heretical here), the violations of which would likely mean that He is not God. For instance, God's holiness precludes him from fellowship with sin, setting in place the requirement for atonement, and he cannot lie (cf. Numbers 23:19). We logically think of these things as limits, but perhaps they are more appropriately considered as the very nature of God.



I think that God's establishment of other beings equal in his power would diminish his identity as God. Could multiple beings all be omnipotent concurrently? If God granted omnipotence to other beings, wouldn't that suggest that He had yielded Himself in some way? In pondering whether two beings could share omniscience, my mind began to run in circles with "are you thinking what i'm thinking about what you're thinking about...", so I'll leave that alone. Again borrowing a concept from the Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament book I was reading, the gods of Mesopotamia were organized in a pantheon, with each assigned various responsibilities, functions and authority. Each existed within the cosmos, whereas the Israelite God was attributed as birthing the cosmos and operated independent of it. To grant equivalent power, or knowledge to created beings would turn that relationship (between Creator and created) on its side. And as the writer of Philippians puts it, Jesus as man "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."



I also wonder if man was effectively put in the role of God, as your question hypothesizes, if he could be trusted not to destroy everything. This is of course assuming that man possessed the same free will, but was more capable in executing the whims of his desires. Or would Godly omniscience prevent man from willing anything "bad", since he would absolutely understand the harmful repercussions of his actions before doing them? The philosophy of this is beyond me, but it's deep stuff to think about. I can only offer that as we are now, men not gods, Jesus says that man's very heart breeds evil ambition (cf. Mark 7:14-23), so I inclined to think that we're better off without such unlimited power.



Thanks for following up with your questions. It's given me quite a bit to think about and I enjoyed the research along the way.

----

EDIT: fixed link formatting.

Hello there /u/drac07, as a person who has studied the Exodus, such a topic matter is divided among people (even some Christians). Certainly from what you've said that some people seem desperate, I would agree with you on that. Though not all are.
I recommend the scholarly works of James K Hoffmeier and Kenneth A Kitchen who are experts in the field of Egyptology and Biblical Archeology.

Israel in Egypt
On the Reliability of the Old Testament

Hopefully this will help you to understand the historicity of the Exodus, other events and also answering sceptical scholars objections to the Exodus.

I'm not aware of a religion, but there is a book written by Thomas Jefferson that just includes what Jesus taught and tosses out the claims to divinity. It's called The Jefferson Bible or The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, plenty. The Jefferson Bible is excellent - it's the New Testament minus the inanity. I highly recommend it.

The new testament still scores pretty good compared to other ancient writings/writers.

Most of the items he listed as discrepancies between the gospels fall in the category of "an omission by one author isn't a contradiction". The timing issues have been explained by the gospel writers using different calendars and methods of measuring time, and multiple sabbaths (Therefore multiple days of preparation) during the passover week.

He touts Mark as an example of fine Greek written by a very educated man, but it's written in a Greek spoken by commoners and slaves; even approaching the ungrammatical at times.

In short, it seems that he quickly goes through a list of one-line statements that represent his side of the argument and never touches on the opposing view; when entire books have been written on many of these topics.

This is really quite the question. You'll undoubtedly get some really insightful response from guys way smarter than me!

So let me contribute my widow's mite to the conversation. Grab a couple of books and read them slowly and thoughtfully. I think this deliberate lingering look at the subject that your post shows you've obviously given much thought to, will serve you better than a paragraph or two here in reddit - be they ever so clear!

If I may recommend two for you?

You've got to read the seminal work by O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants

Then follow that up with Michael Horton's book Introducing Covenant Theology for a more modern look at the subject.

Both of these you can buy used at Amazon for right around $5. I think they will be great tools for you as you work through the thoughts you outline above.

Forgive the lack of 'crunchy' in this post by skirting an answer with book recommendations!

Goldsworthy is a great place to start. I recommend According to Plan, which includes "Gospel and Kingdom" mentioned elsewhere but also "Gospel and Wisdom" and "Gospel in Revelation". So you get the covenant theology take on all of Scripture.

For what it's worth, Christ of the Covenants is like $10 on Amazon. I think that's the book I used in my OT class in college. But I think I'd go with Goldsworthy for the extra eight bucks.

Donald Knuth wrote a book about the Bible, as well.

How about this?

Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization

It covers from 4000 BCE to the conquest of Babylon by Cirus in 539 BCE.

Also:

The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures



A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323BC

I have all of them and I can't really recommend them because I haven't started them yet :P (they're still on my reading queue, tho)

EDIT: The last one seems pretty comprehensive. Just looked at its table of contents and remembered why I bought it.

EDIT 2: You could go to /r/AskHistorians and ask the same question.

This is a good introduction for the entire region

http://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Near-East-3000/dp/1405149116/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346292906&sr=8-2&keywords=mesopotamian+history

I love Micheal Kruger's books Canon revisited and The question of Canon. If you really want to dive into the subject D.A. Carson's The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures is an amazing resource.

That's a lot of questions! I'll try to provide some answers, but obviously they will be brief and just starting points. I'll point you to resources/books that will answer your questions more exhaustively when I can, since some of your questions have been answered in many books.

First, I would expand a little bit on your definition of Sola Scriptura. It means that Scripture and Scripture alone is our final authority in the church. (Note: it is not the only authority. We value tradition, experience and reason as well, but they are not the final authority.)

>What is the historic evidence of Sola Scriptura?

Not sure what you mean by historic evidence, but I would take the writings of the early church fathers, where they would appeal to the Scriptures as final authority. It's very hard to answer such a broad question on a medium like this. Now, if you want an early church father explicitly defending this doctrine, then there is none, as far as I know. This is simply because it was not a doctrine that was fought over, hence not a lot of the early church fathers wrote explicitly on this. (This applies to heaps of other doctrines.)

>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer the charge of knowing the canon of Scripture while the canon not being listed (explicitly) in Scripture?

See Michael Kruger's book, Canon Revisited.

>Does the Bible say that it is sufficient to be the rule of Christian faith and practice? It seems that the verses: 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16–17, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and many others seem to indicate that not only does Scripture not mention self sufficiency but rather as a practical guide, with Tradition being on equal par as an inspired pair with Scripture.

In these passages, why would you take the word "tradition" as how the Roman Catholic church would define it? I would read "tradition" as Paul's teaching as passed on to them, which is then enscripturated in the Bible. There's nothing in those passages that requires Tradition being on equal par with Scripture. It is only that if you have already assumed the meaning of the word "Tradition" as only how the RC church would define it.

>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer Cardinal Newman's argument against Sola Scriptura on the basis that pulling from some of the Pauline Epistles proves to much: "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

I'm not exactly sure what he means. If you would rephrase it, it would be helpful. But if I'm reading him correct, he seems to say that it's too much to base our doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the writings of Paul. Well, we don't just rely on Paul's writings to defend the doctrine. In fact, I would argue that if properly defended, Sola Scriptura can be defended from the whole Old Testament all the way to the New.

Penal Substitution
>If Christ's death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of sin of human beings, being fully of God, why wouldn't everyone be saved?

Good question! That's why Calvinist do not believe that Christ death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of all human beings, but only for the elect. This is the "L" (Limited Atonement) in TULIP, although I prefer the term "Particular/Definite Redemption". To sum that doctrine up - "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."

>Why should we think that it is even possible for Christ to take on moral responsibility for our current and past sins?

On the one hand, why is it up to us? We believe Scripture says so, and thus we believe it. On the other hand, you can point to the doctrine of union with Christ - we become one with Christ, or united with Christ when we believe in him. Because of that, he is able to take on moral responsibility for our sins. What is ours are his, and what is his is ours. It's like in a marriage. When you marry someone, everything that he/she has is yours, and everything that is yours is hers/his, and that include things like debt.

Justification by Faith
>What Biblical basis is there that it is only by faith we are justified?

Heaps. Romans 3:21ff, Romans 4 (where Abraham is used as an OT example), Ephesians 2:1-11, Galatians, etc. Now, just in case you don't know, the RC notion of justification is different from the Protestant doctrine of justification. So, before you go any further, I think it's best that you know that first.

>Does the act of believing, or baptism, show a correspondence of works and faith?

Not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

>What is the historic evidence of Sola Fide?

See answer above on historic evidence of Sola Scriptura. It's there in the writings of the early church fathers, but it is not explicit, since it was not something the church fought over. The early church fought over other things (Trinity, Christology), and that's why you see their writings focusing so much on those things. Sola fide was really only seriously fought over during the Reformation, that's why there are numerous writings on this during that time. This doesn't mean that it's not there in the early church, it definitely is. But it is inchoate.

The Jefferson Bible.

The dh fails in a lot of respects. If you're really interested in the topic, I suggest the book Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassuto.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9657052351/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/178-9044561-1948155

Well, that will depends entirely on the definition of "historically accurate"...

To put it simple, if the definition means

1) you always need outside sources for confirmation, to accept it as "historically accurate".
Then you have a huge problem. Since most historical accounts (ancient, greek, egypt, middle ages, etc..) come from single sources written (or oldest known manuscripts) way after the event. Basically most ancient (and sometimes even not so ancient) history we learned in school was then fantastical bullshit.

2) a text is deemed "historically accurate" as long as no archeological findings & other sources tell a different story.
Then it will depend on a) how much content is disputed
b) which source has more credibility
c) how good is my text overall (1 wrong part, will not disprove 100 verified ones)
d) how good is my archeology

So I treat the OT/NT text as a historical text. That can be critizised/analyzed/studied like any other manuscript.
Personally I belief the supernatural stories about god, Jesus, are true also, but that cannot be verified historically. That's, like in any religion, a matter of belief... But practically a lot of old manuscripts & "writting on stones" (egypt, greek, ...) contain supernatural sayings, and god(s) who interfere. If you would discredit the OT/NT text on that basis, most of ancient history that you learned would have to be discarded as well.
And all that personal stories, like "he said this" & "she answered this", you will be never to prove/disprove anyway. Only the surrounding text (language,names) and factual information (knowledge of time period, locations, etc...)

When it come to the OT/NT text so far, most things that can/could be verified archeologically seem to support the bible as an accurate historical text.
In the NT especially Acts as a mainly historical book stands out...

In the OT, the farther back you get, the fuzzier the answer will be. My problem with most criticism, like Finkelsteins, is that it depends heavily on "evidence not found" coupled with "time dating the site" (="no evidence at the time wehre I date the event").

This approach has 3 problems:
1) exact locations (cities, places, etc.) are often highly disputed. We often don't know the verified exact locations of roman and sometimes even middle age battles in Europe. So it seems a little strange, when some archeologist says for events 1000-2000 years earlier, this is definitively the site (while he most definitively never looked 2 miles to the west...).
2) Dating in Egypt, Israel, heck the whole Middle East ist pretty much a mess of its own for the OT time period. First there are not too many "datable" artefacts, and secondly Finkelstein & Co don't believe in C14 carbon dating. O.K. that's highly simplified and blatantly wrong. The truth is: the "established standard timeline" based on Egyptology practically never corresponded really to C14 dating (a couple of hundred years difference). Since a few years back they think they can solve this technically (and with some hypothetical explanations), but it means that practically any C14 dating that doesn't fit the wanted result gets ignored. Basically a lot (mostly older) archeologists of that time in Egypt & Middle East are ignoring C14 dating results for that purpose. There is a battle between archeologists fought here...and C14 seems to be winning lately...
3) dating OT events is always speculative, there are competing arguments e.g. for the time of the exodus (1450-1200) and some dispute the event it at all.

This means personally for me, that while archeological findings in OT times are fun, interesting and sometimes truly awesome, any claim based on "at that time Israel did not exist, the city was not inhabited, long destroyed, we found no evidence" depends too much on "I accurately dated the site/event".
And the absence of findings does not really disprove the existence of something historically. The question quickly becomes one of trusting the underlying assumptions. So far I haven't found much that contradicts the confutable historical narrative parts of the OT/NT text. Archeological research that depends on "exact" location/time dating offers questions and definitive mistakes in the text. But the time/place dating of this research depends often highly on other factors and interpretations, and is mostly disputed.



===============

Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament) is "the standard" book about your question.
http://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

But for some fun (about the disputes on dating) read "Centuries of Darkness". Kitchen does't agree with them (and I lean more to him honestly), but then who agrees really about anything for that time period :-)
http://www.centuries.co.uk/index.htm

The historical and archaeological evidence for Moses is skant. I have studied the Bible enough to believe it to be very reliable, so I believe that Moses was a real person.

I checked with a historian who works on the related archeology and Pentateuch studies. Here's what he said:

> there are many Christian and Jewish scholars who do not believe Moses is a myth. The debates about the evidence often boil down to a "glass half full" vs. "glass half empty." Pro-Moses scholars point out the evidence that makes his existence plausible, and anti-Moses scholars point out the lack of direct external proof of his existence. I belong to two consortiums of scholars in Pentateuch studies, each composed of about 20-40 scholars, all of whom believe there was a Moses. They are all internationally qualified Ph.D.'s.

Recommended resources:

The video documentary Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, which is very balanced and well-done: http://patternsofevidence.com/

Secondly, Kenneth Kitchen's book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament:
https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962

Thirdly, the work of Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier:
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691

Kenneth Kitchen's "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" is a decade old but remains excellent.

>If you don't like wikipedia as a source, feel free to click through. Nothing in that article is missing citations.

Okay, how about this one:

>The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. . . . The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. . . . And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naïve attitudes and cease demanding ‘evidence’ that cannot exist." p. 246 (Kenneth Kitchen is one of the most preeminent scholars of ancient Egypt, having authored hundreds of journal articles and books.)

So absence of evidence is ... absence of evidence. How underwhelming and obvious.

>Your argument is just an argument from personal incredulity.

No, it's an argument to the best explanation. This is called abductive reasoning.

>As for the difficulty of getting a whole bunch of people to believe a story that is purported to have been a thousand years earlier? Why not. Who from a thousand years earlier was there to contradict the story?

Everyone:

"Hey everybody, look what I have. This document explains the moral code, legal system, ontology, and history of mankind that G-d gave our ancestors."

"How come we've never heard of it before? What does 'circumcision' mean? On the seventh year we do what with our crops?! Yeah, this makes sense. Let's all start doing this! We agree with this document that portrays us as slaves, idolaters, malcontents, and worse. We especially like the feces-god some of us worshipped in Numbers 25. Nice touch! From this day forward we will all devote our lives to the perpetuation of this book. Thank you, Not-Moses! Let's kill everyone who doesn't go along with this."

I have a better explanation.

I agree with you, but I think you misunderstood what I was inquiring. There are many atheists or members of other religions that would agree with you that the bible contains a lot of sensible moral teachings (not referring the old testament here); more along the lines of those of Jesus. That being said, why take stock in things like organized religion, belief in eternal salvation/damnation et cetera; rather than just simply appreciating the moral teachings for what they are? Thomas Jefferson did just that when he wrote this.

Jefferson edited the bible to take out all of the supernatural aspects and just left the teachings of Jesus.

You should really look into the Jefferson Bible.. Thomas Jefferson was a religious scholar who was EXTREMELY open minded about religion, surprising for someone of his time. He even owned a Koran! He ended up writing this book, his version of the bible without all that stupid mythology and slavery crap.. It's actually a pretty good read!

Here is the Amazon link if anyone is interested in having a physical copy.

> How do you know? A plausible reading of Paul's epistles point to Jesus being a celestial deity whom was crucified in the firmament.

Huh? What does this even mean? No credible historian denies that Jesus was a human being. I'd love to see the sources you have for that

> That relies on the gospels, which are rejected as historical sources by historians.

Highly false. There are a lot of Christian Historians with PhD's from Harvard, Yale, Oxford etc. that do not reject the gospels as historical sources....in fact, there are only a select few Historians in general, Christian and non-, that would say the gospels are not accurate as historical literature, one example: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

> Unless the body was stolen, lost, or Jesus was a mythological character.

valid points, and common counters to the resurrection. But again, there are numerous studies on the resurrection from PhD scholars, e.g. The Evidence for the Resurrection by JND Anderson

> What'd you find on NT?

Unfortunately, almost all that I have read has been from books that I have in person but I'll link some of them:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Craig L. Blomberg

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Making the Case for Christianity - Korey Maas, Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact - John Bombaro, Adam Francisco


I've also had Dr. Daniel Wallace recommended to me, although I haven't gotten to look into his work much. I know he has some videos scattered on YouTube that can be watched, here is one.

I'd also recommend anything by John Warwick Montgomery!

> Yeah, sure thing. Really, the most damning thing to me is that he only interviewed apologists; the skeptics that he mentions in the book did not have the opportunity to defend themselves there. But here are some sources that I found interesting:

Thank you!


EDIT: Formatting

Couple of good books on Covenant Theology:

• The Christ of the Covenants
  
• God of Promise
  

A good book on this topic is Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson

Traditional Dispensationalism:

http://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Charles-C-Ryrie/dp/080242189X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344919159&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=DiSoensationalism

http://www.amazon.com/There-Really-Difference-Comparison-Dispensational/dp/0915540509/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Things-Come-Study-Biblical-Eschatology/dp/0310308909/ref=pd_sim_b_9

Progressive Dispensationalism:
http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Dispensationalism-BridgePoint-Books-Darrell/dp/0801022436/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344919422&sr=1-1&keywords=progressive+dispensationalism

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Central-Issues-Contemporary-Dispensationalism/dp/0825420628/ref=pd_sim_b_3

Covenant (sorry, my seminary was staunchly dispensational so I am less knowledgeable here):
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Covenants-O-Palmer-Robertson/dp/0875524184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344919539&sr=1-1&keywords=christ+and+the+covenants

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Dispensationalists-Vern-Sheridan-Poythress/dp/0875523749/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

Hope this helps.

Sure. In no specific order:

Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 4


None of these are specifically Biblical history, as I'm sure you'll quickly gather. To fully grasp the Old Testament, however, there are a few important areas that one must be strong in (in my humble opinion, that is): Ancient Near East history, and the New Testament, and a general understanding of Judaism and its individual history.

I think there is a vast difference between claiming someone has a view you disagree with and claiming someone is being purposely and nefariously dishonest. I've read and interacted with Kruger's writings, namely (as it is related to this issue) his book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Book. Kruger does a great job fairly presenting and countering some of the contemporary claims presented by critical scholars regarding canonicity and the first two centuries of the church. For what it's worth, I don't at all get the impression that he is lying. He believes what he is saying.

I like the method presented in Michael Kruger's book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. He calls it the self-authenticating method (by listening to some of what you mentioned you might have heard of it). It is essentially this: canonical books must meet four criteria – 1. Providntial Exposer 2. Divine Qualities 3. Corporate Reception and 4. Apostolic Origins.

There is a ton of nuance there, but I think that the method he presents is the best considering the alternatives. This method makes a case for Revelation as canon and perhaps Enoch as scripture (again, a lot of nuance, and in his book he talks about books that were Scripture but are not canon, such as Paul's lost letters).

Overall, the canon must be self auhthenticating, and a lot of methods we use to argue for canonical books rely on authority that rests outside of God and his Word. I highly suggest reading his book. If you want a free .mobi or .epub copy direct message me.

84 cents on Amazon.

But the best deal is the $4.99 paperback. The perfect Christmas gift for all your rabid right wing Christian relatives and co-workers.

> Is the Bible compatible with democracy?

That depends on which parts of the Bible you ignore.

The bible is so inconsistent that every Christian must decide which parts to ignore. Ignore the right parts, and things are just fine. Check out Thomas Jefferson's version. It is very compatible.

Introduce her to the concept of reality starting with subjective perspective.

Introduce her to the Jefferson Bible - http://www.amazon.com/The-Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Nazareth/dp/1604591285

The philosophy of liberty (originally a flash animation but now found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I ) is a good starting point (a fundamental) for understanding humanist morality and rules of subjective perception.

Introduction to the concept of falsification is a dangerous but necessary thing - ultimately, falsification and collaboration are important methods by which subjective perception becomes objective observation.

I am sure that other Redditors could contribute to this in a much more creative way, but this is what I think of when this subject comes up.

It only covers the sayings of Jesus, but I consult The Five Gospels whenever I am puzzled by something Jesus said. It is often interesting, and sometimes helpful!

I'm a little surprised that no one has recommended reading the Gospels yet. I'm an agnostic, but Jesus is still a phenomenally challenging and poetic thinker and teacher, and it's an essential work of literature and philosophy, especially if you take the time to separate the core of its message from its subsequent alterations. The Five Gospels, which is an ambitious—if controversial—attempt to pull the original teachings from the later material, would be a good place to start.

>The new testament on the other hand is more or less unchanged since it was written.

Sort of.

Also, on a similar topic (and by the same author).

A list of Bible verses not found in modern translations that are present in historical versions of the bible.

Just watched this today. It seems to be a very bold claim to adjust the chronology by centuries, in opposition with the bulk of modern and previous historians and archaeologists.

I must admit that there were several astonishing moments in the documentary, but it's hard to tell. Documentaries arguing for a specific viewpoint can exaggerate the evidence in favor of their theory and not mention evidence opposed to it.

However, I notice that this documentary was released relatively recently (2015), so I'm hoping that it pushes historians to rethink and reexamine the Biblical Exodus and the timelines surrounding it. Perhaps more will be found in the next few decades?

Either way, I think the documentary helped me feel more comfortable putting this one particular doubt on the shelf for now. Thank you and everyone else for recommending it! I've also picked up a couple books about the Exodus, such as Israel in Egypt.

John Lennox

This book will help you out a lot. Written by a mathematician who also happens to be a professor at Oxford University and a Christian.

Hi prophetofantman. I am one of the few creationists on this sub. I recommend you post your question to /r/Creation as well. If you message the mods I'm sure you'll be given access.

If you are interested in some more general books on this topic, I can recommend the following:

Three Views on Creation and Evolution.

Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism.

The Cell's Design - Fazale Rana

---------------

Some good Young Earth Creationist books:

Understanding the Pattern of Life - Todd Wood

Thousands, Not Billions, ed. Don DeYoung

Seraphim Hamilton, a young Eastern Orthodox commentator and YEC, wrote a good blog post here.

-----

A good book on theistic evolution is "Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?" by Denis Alexander


-----

A good Old Earth Creationist book is John Lennox's

"The Seven Days Which Divide the World".

You might also be interested in this Christianity Today article
"A Tale of Two Scientists"

Perhaps this is not a debate point, but if you're really interested, you should check a book by John Lennox called Seven Days that Divide The World. I think it has some very strong claims that address your claims. There are some lectures of his on Youtube on his book, as well. I'll come back and answer you later today!

Seven Days the Divide the World by John Lennox

Short book (192 small pages), intended to get to the bottom of what truths we should accept from the Genesis creation account and other parts of scripture.

Its purpose seems to be to prevent people from both:

• rejecting theories based on observable evidence due to their misunderstanding of Scripture
  
  
• compromising important doctrines because they think that those parts of Scripture contradict scientific discoveries and are therefore to be ignored entirely
  
  Because it is so short there is not a lot of depth, but I think it is a good start.

I believe there is a third option, laid out much better than I could ever begin to in 7 Days That Divided the World by Dr. John Lennox. Check it out
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0310492173?pc_redir=1408078642&robot_redir=1

Genesis is actually the first book of the Torah. (Torah = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.) The Qur'an wasn't written until the seventh century AD, so it's not going to be a good resource for understanding Genesis within its own historical context.

If you want a general, basic understanding of the old testament, get this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Testament-Historical-Introduction/dp/0195378407

If you want a general, basic understanding of the new testament, get this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Historical-Introduction/dp/0199757534

If you want a specifically Christian resource on the bible as a whole, get this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826

If you're going literary, you can't beat Robert Alter. Compare:


JPS:
>When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

Alter:
>When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day.


He's translated the psalms, too, to interesting effect:


nJPS:

My God, my God, why have You abandoned me;
why so far from delivering me and from my anguished roaring?
My God, I cry by day——You answer not;
by night, and have no respite.

Alter:

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
Far from my rescue are the words that I roar.
My God, I call out by day and You do not answer,
by night——no stillness for me.

KJV:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art Thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not;
and in the night season, and am not silent.

I think the Oxford Bible Commentary is a great resource in general. They publish commentary on sections of the Bible in separate volumes, including one on the Pentateuch, which includes an overview of the history of Pentateuch criticism and the development of the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis.

The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library has a lot of good resources in biblical criticism too. They recently released this hefty renewal/evaluation/overview of JEPD. It received a good review from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, which I think is considered a respectable representative of mainstream biblical studies.

Also, Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative) is always fun to read for a fresh, literary perspective. He might have an interesting take on JEPD in his edition of the Pentateuch.

All religions interest me (as does atheism). My formal graduate education was Christian-centered, but I've always branched out in my private studies. Of the non-Abrahamic faiths, the one I've probably had the most exposure to is Buddhism. I grew up in a religious household, but my parents were never judgmental or exclusionary of other traditions, so I was encouraged to talk to people and find out more about them. I encountered many belief systems and made diverse friends in public school, from Roman Catholic to hardcore atheist, and my interest blossomed from there. I've also always been a voracious reader, which helps!

If you ever want to learn more about the context of Genesis as it was written and as it might have been read by its original audience, I recommend the translation-with-commentary The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter. (An ironic name for a translator, I know -- but he's outstanding, and takes a knowledgeable secular approach rather than a devotional one. He's also done the David Story, the Psalms, and the Wisdom Books, including Job.) For more on the "Image/Likeness" distinction, it shows up in many Orthodox Christian writings, but Bishop Kallistos Ware (a frequent writer of apologetic works) gives a decent explanation of the concept as his community understands it, beginning on page 219 of his book The Orthodox Church.

> You are welcome to that opinion. But you frame Vines, et al as simply re-presenting Boswell, and that is deeply unfair.

Except Vines has no new arguments of his own and they closely mirror Boswell's in trying to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible. For instance, Vines claims scholarly research into the historical background show that biblical authors were not forbidding all same-sex relationships, but only exploitative ones. The argument is that Paul and other biblical writers had no concept of an innate homosexual orientation, that they only knew of exploitative homosexual practices, and therefore they had no concept of mutual, loving, same-sex relationships. This is Boswell and Scroggs 101 who were expertly refuted by Bernadette Brooten and William Loader.

>I've read an essay by Loader exploring this, and he only mentioned the Aristophanes passage – and muted its usefulness, since Plato elsewhere seems not to buy the idea of homosexual orientation.

Yet, Loader still arrives at the conclusion that homosexuality was known at the time from the evidence presented.

>Not as an argument in itself, but as an invitation for you to guide me to other passages of ancient discussion of homosexual orientation.

Great, start here.

http://barbwire.com/2014/04/29/liberal-scholars-homosexuality/

http://www.theologymatters.com/NovDec01.PDF

https://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398821194&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+gagnon

https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Sexuality-Christianity-Hellenistic-Greco-Roman/dp/0802867243

http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/LoaderSameSex.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Sex-Attitudes-Literature/dp/0802870953

Here is a list of steps which will solve your problem;

1. Throw away the codex.
   
   
2. Order this book
   
   
3. Transfer to a secular university and pick a different major.

I would suggest you read this post:

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2011/07/bible-church-and-homosexuality.html

And watch the Robert Gagnon video at the end.

I would also recommend this lecture from Robert Gagnon: http://ec.libsyn.com/p/5/b/0/5b0fe32492222ba0/Sep07_10.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06c98136d0ca5b36fd&c_id=2294080

And especially his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Texts-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797

Robert Gagnon The Bible and Homosexuality is a seminary level writing on the subject that covers it.

Keving DeYoung's What the Bible Really Teaches about Homosexuality is a far quicker read and covers the topic. He actually references Gagnon's text quite a bit, so I'd start there if I were you.

If you'd like to read more about the historical backdrop behind the various stories in Genesis, there's a really good book on the subject. The author is a biblical historian.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396028025&sr=1-1&keywords=kugel

Let's stick to the firmament for a bit. Your authors are quite wrong on a number of counts.

Here's the definition of the Hebrew word from my condensed copy of BDB, considered the definitive Hebrew lexicon:

רָקִיעַ n.m. extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out) — firmamentum

1. (flat) expanse (as if of ice), as base, support.
   
2. the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.
   
   First, there's a few places in the Bible where the firmament is shown as clearly solid:
   
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2037:18;%20Job%2022:14&version=HCSB
   
   (Note the verb translated "spread out" is the verb form of the word translated as firmament. In every use in the OT it means to beat out a solid thing. Here's two other uses of the verb form.)
   
   A bunch of guys got to go up there and see God on top of the firmament:
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2024:9-10&version=HCSB
   
   Also Ezekiel's vision clearly shows his views of the solid dome God lives above:
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201:22-25;%2010:1-2&version=HCSB
   
   At minimum this makes the claim that they didn't know of this cosmology seem silly. The same is true of the claim that it wasn't a common cosmology. We have good evidence for the summerian and canaanite and other groups.
   
   One of your other sources claims the Bible has birds fly in the firmament. That's not true, and it doesn't read that way in any modern translation, only those derived from the KJV. The verse in Genesis literally says "flies in front of the face of the firmament of the heavens". The word face is also used for the surface of the earth and other solid things, and a better translation is really "flies in front of the surface of the firmament of the heavens."
   
   
   Consider also where the fire comes from to burn up Elijah's offering, where the chariot of fire goes up to, Jacob's ladder, etc.
   
   There's tons more evidence, and if you want a book by a conservative Christian scholar on the issue, check out this one.
   
   He also wrote The Lost World of Genesis One where he deals with how he thinks this information should be used to change our understanding of the goal of the writers of Genesis. An essay version of the main points of his book is here.

Not sure if you were making an incredibly obscure reference to this... but it's been done The Book of J, by Harold Bloom

You might enjoy reading "The Book of J" by Harold Bloom

https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg on Line 2...

Of course, where postmodernism comes from and/or is going and/or is interpreted is always a huge cluster fuck the second you bring Kafka into the conversation.

Hello!

Just because there is no evidence that any religion has it right doesn't mean there is no God.

1. But it is a least feasible that the universe has a self-sufficient cause in itself, but even then there could still be god. Of course, he's not the kind of God you pray to for a new bike, or even pray to forgiveness for stealing a bike. God would be more like an epiphenomenon of the universe or maybe something that undergirds causation if you think one state of affairs is insufficient to bring about another state of affairs.
   
   
2. Ummm, I study brains and humans are pretty fucking special
   
   
3. Living things are made of the exact same stuff non-living things are. In fact, if you made a non-living thing that could take in chemicals, synthesize molecules, incorporate those molecules into it's own body and excrete waste products, I would call that a living thing.
   
   I urge you to not completely discard your Christianity. Jesus became a myth creature only later, there was a real jesus who did actually say some profound stuff. So i'd recommend you look at what practices and teachings you had during your Christianity and maintain some of them, but for different reasons than formally. Oh and if you are intellectually curious as to what Jesus actually said and actually believed I'd recommend The Gospel of Jesus, which has an interesting take, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, which is more historically rigorous, and the Five Gospels: What did Jesus really say?, which is a good reference book on the historicity of individual biblical Jesus quotes
   
   Oh and ---> Christian Deism

The Five Gospels.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but Robert Funk and a group of scholars called "The Jesus Seminar" wrote a book called The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? that attempts to deconstruct the gospels using historical/critical analysis.

Maybe? I dunno, I'm not a biblical scholar, I know what I know from a historical perspective. That sounds Old-Testamenty, anyway, which largely only pertains to pre-Rabbinic Jewish tradition/Judaism of Antiquity, and trying to literally interpret the Bible, especially the Old Testament, without context can basically be used to justify anything.

tl;dr fucking house motherfucking rapists, this isn't hard. You're protecting life.

If you want a really studied interpretation of the New Testament, check out The Five Gospels. It's what happens when you get a hundred historians and religious authorities and skeptics, Christian and Jewish, to dissect the teachings of Jesus, or rather, what was written of the teachings.

> Wait, there's a historical Jesus?

My impression is that there's a historical Jesus in the sense that there's a historical Robin Hood or King Arthur. What we see in the Gospels are re-tellings of the life of Jesus, heavily interspersed with embellishments and re-toolings (especially the Gospel of John). So to me it's plausible that there was a Jesus or a Jesus-like figure who existed and was executed, even if the details are quite a bit different from what we see in the New Testament. Robert Funk has some very interesting research on the topic.

In contrast, the whole Moses story is contingent on the idea that Egypt kept Jewish slaves, for which there is scant historical evidence. So I'm more likely to believe in a "historical" Jesus than a "historical" Moses.

Coming across this post a bit late for the party, but:

• On the OT, an important source is Karen Armstrong's A History of God. A great summary can be seen in Evid3nc3's video by the same name.
  
• Bart Ehrman is probably the finest source of information on the NT. He used to be a Christian fundie (?) but his intense scholarship of the Bible has led him to lose his faith. You can check Amazon for a whole series of his books, published over 20 years or so. His most recent work, Forged, exposes how major parts of the NT weren't even consistently authored by the same unknown dudes. I don't personally have any of his books, but pretty much each of them exposes how stuff in the NT just fails to add up to a consistent and credible picture.

It is tough to know what us legitimate and not. A lot of the time, it wasn't a deliberate forgery. The monks were trying to address modern issues with ancient text and writing what they thought the orginal author would have said. There is a good book on the subject of forgies. A pretty fascinating analysis of what is and is not a forgery, and how well we know what parts of the bible are original.

Not true. Having many ancient sources is the reason we know how much they differ from each other. You're right about the typos and such, but you're also ignoring the major issues like fake books written under someone's name (many of Paul's current letters in today's bibles are proven to be written by people claiming to be him). Also people at the time tried to insert texts to support their views because the views did not have solid grounds in the texts at the time. For example, the Comma Johanneum. Check also some books about this issue like Bart Ehrman's Forged.

Christians might be ok with the levels of preserving for the Bible, but comparing that with the Old Testament and with the Quran, clearly it's the least preserved.

Forged by Bart D. Ehrman. http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614

An important point...these are not chapters of one book, they are independently produced manuscripts, from dubious sources, many of whom purported (especially the gospels) to be an author more famous than themselves, especially an apostle.

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614

Any of the Bart D Ehrman books are worth reading.
I am currently reading Forged.

This article (where an atheist slams C. Hitchens) makes an interesting reference to this - and Hitchens' perpetuation of it:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/

Apparently this guy and his writings complicate matters on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X

James K. Hoffmeier - Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, Oxford University Press

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X

This thread is a troll's best dream come true.

Unfortunately, tents, poles, and poop don't last long in the desert.

There's a book that I believe does a decent job of tackling this subject. In it, the author addresses the order of creation, the meaning of 'days', as well as many other topics.

He's also written another book that tackles the silly notion that science and faith cannot coexist.

I know this is not really conducive to debate, but I thought it pertinent to bring these books to everyone's attention.

Evolution could have been a tool that God used, but the belief that God created the universe is a core belief of Christianity.

If the 6 day interpretation of Genesis is giving you a hard time look up some Old Earth creationist theories.
This book might help:
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405985900&sr=1-1&keywords=7+days+that+divide+the+world

John Lennox' book, Seven Days that Divide the World, is a great resource for thinking this through. The tl;dr is Genesis doesn't aim to tell us how, it aims to tell us why.

John Lennox wrote a book about a theory similar to this called Seven Days That Divide the World.

Here's one of his (pretty darn long) lectures on it, and I find him to be a delightful (and I don't use "delightful" lightly) speaker.

I hate to give a summary, because it's pretty nuanced, but the big points are that the Bible doesn't necessarily say anything about the age of the earth and that he has no trouble with the estimated 12-13 billion year age of the universe. I absolutely loved it when I first heard it, and it kind of sent me off on a journey to start assaulting my faith with ridiculously difficult questions so I can be absolutely sure of it.

These type of "objections" have been raised a dime a dozen and frankly its getting boring dealing with them. However, I'm in a good mood so lets go. Before I start, I'm a doctor so when I read "the oldest of those dying the painful death of having their teeth rot out of their skull" I just had to ask, what the heck is that????

Ok moving on. Dealing with Genesis, we have to deal with the Hermeneutics of the book itself. It can be said that the book is written in a poetry style and was meant not to educate people about the way the universe formed, but rather to demonstrate that Yahweh was above all that they had worshipped as Gods (sun, moon, stars). If you are into reading, John Lennox's Seven Days that Divide the world could help shed some light on how Christians view Genesis. Not every Christian is Ken Ham in the same way that not every atheist is Josef Stalin.

Before I move on to the next part of your rant, I would like to ask. You mentioned "Heaven, completely capable of intervening, watches this with total indifference." Why does this bother you?

https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Switch-Your-Brain-Happiness-Thinking/dp/1480536245

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

I don't have time right now to give more then this. But those books will detail how your statement is not true. Obviously I can't go through the entire bible and give examples for ever single thing. But all those 3 books are very topical to Nofap or creation :)

Hey, I know this is late, but if you're still watching this post, I have a couple books for you. I have no idea what you mean by "middleweight-heavy," so I'll just list a few I use and teach from. I'm working on my M.Div. at a Southern Baptist Seminary, so you know I'm not a Ph.D. or an expert.

1. Gordon Fee. He has a couple good books, How to Read the Bible Book by Book and How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. These books give a great overview of the hermeneutics of the Bible, and while I recommend them as a great way to get a little deeper, definitely aren't for the faint of heart.
   
   
2. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Bloomberg, and Hubbard. This is one of our Intro to Hermeneutics texts at Midwestern Baptist Seminary.
   
   
3. Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays. Our other Intro to Hermeneutics text. Gives you lots of examples and practice that I love and use this method when I'm preaching or teaching on a text.
   
   And two I'm not as familiar with, but should be interesting for you:
   
   
4. The Plainly Revealed Word of God? A book written specifically about Baptist hermeneutics. It says that it was mostly English Baptists, but had input from the US and Eastern Europe.
   
   
5. How to Read the Bible Like a Seminary Professor by Mark Yarbrough of DTS. I haven't read this one, so I have no idea what level it would be at, but thought you might be interested because of the DTS connection.
   
   To be honest, I haven't read Traina, and am not sure what sorts of things you've been getting from DTS, so I hope this is helpful. And if not, maybe it will be for someone clicking here to see what books people recommend.

I'm not going to delve into your argument/thesis but will suggest you read something like

https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826

Taking something like that from the Psalms and applying it the way you have is a red flag for me.

Understanding a little more of the context of verse and book is helpful. The Bible is not a long list of 'Commands from God' or trueisms that are universally applicable.

In particular the 1 Corinthians passages are about meat sacrificed to idols. And the passage in Romans is about honoring your brother believer who is still 'weak' in his faith. And at heart it is about honoring the law when it is no longer required.

Understanding how the New and Old covenants work and work together is important in understanding the 'jot and tittle' statement. We Gentiles are not Jews.

This is a good read on the subject

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4826020-what-the-bible-says-about-covenant

Exegesis is looking at Scripture and trying to figure out what it originally meant to its audience. This means studying the historical context surrounding the verse. Someone mentioned Isaiah 53 not being about the Messiah. Why do they believe this? Well if you look at the historical context it makes sense that it's about Israel and/or Isaiah himself. Isaiah was traditionally believed to be martyred by the king of Israel. But later in the New Testament Paul applies a new meaning to the verse and attributes it to Christ. Which is right? Well as a Christian I would say both are important. Hermeneutics is merely taking what you learned through exegesis and applying it to a modern context or what it means to us.

As for learning more about it I could name many different books, but here are the ones I read first:

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

Grasping God's Word

Inspiration and Incarnation

Get alone with God and talk with Him about what you've read. Talk out loud as if you're talking to a real person who is in the room with you. Talk to Him about your understanding of what He was doing in the text that you read, and worship Him as you do. Ask Him questions or tell Him things you don't understand, and then make some time to sit quietly and meditate so the Spirit can minister understanding to your heart and mind.

Additionally, check out this book by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart: https://smile.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/ref=dp_ob_title_bk . No commentary or book can substitute for actually reading and meditating on the Word of God, but this book really helped me understand the types of literature in Bible, so I was better able to grasp what I was reading and how I should attempt to interpret it.

Lastly, I'd caution that passion is a feeling that can come and go. I would definitely pray and ask God to give you a heart that is passionate for the reading of His word, but understand that some days you'll feel it and probably most days you won't. Understand that the daily discipline of obedience is an act of worship in itself. Don't take pride in your great obedience, of course, but trust that as you are drawing near to God, He will also draw near to you.

>There is no reconciliatory standard. You can't know.

But one can know via hermeneutics. Look at how they use the scriptures. Are they in context? Are they ignoring a passage’s cultural,historical and literary setting? Are they using specific words and phrases while ignoring others? Are they missing the overall message of a passage? Do take phrases and verses from here and
there and makes a point out of the resulting mixture, a point that would not be valid if the passages were considered separately?

The list goes on

One can start here or here

>I already mentioned, not a denomination per se, but approach that speaks to Genesis: literal or not? The world is either billions of years old, or thousands. From this framework, many different issues and interpretations arise.

But you said that Some denominations exist in direct contradiction to others

If some one thinks Genesis is literal or not then only if they get that right then they are a Christian? Or only if they get the age of the universe right then they are a Christian?

I can honestly say that I don't think there is a Christian that I know who has the exact same beliefs as I do on every single doctrine. But that doesn't mean that I, or they, or one of us, are not a Christian. So long as we hold to the same core beliefs.

>Naturalism is self-evident in the sense that we all start with the same premise and share the same axiom: existence in a material universe, with material consequences. Transcendental claims require evidence.

No. all claims require evidence or arguments, even naturalism. It is not true by default.



If naturalism is true then one cannot affirm rationally affirm that it is true; i.e. naturalism is self-refuting. At best you'd get an illusion of rationality.

In a naturalistic universe all matter must act in accordance with the physical laws, without exception.

Human beings are made of matter. Every atom in their body, including those in his brain must act in accordance with the physical laws, without exception.

Thus any thought you have is not due to, for example, evaluation of the evidence or arguments on a particular issues but rather antecedent causes which are controlled by physical laws.

Dr Sean Carroll, an atheist theoretical physicist responds to this very question and concludes that we have free will in name only.

So if one is an atheist/naturalist than there is no such thing as rationality, logic, or critical thinking since one cannot chose between true and false premises.

Atheism/naturalism is self-refuting; using logic and reason to show that logic and reason don't exist. Or using using logic and reason - which cannot be accounted for in their worldview - to refute another worldview that does account for logic and reason. Atheism/naturalism = irrational.

And yet the atheist/naturalist thinks they are more rational than the theist. But on what basis if all thoughts are determined?

I would recommend the book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee. It's an excellent summary of the different kinds of books and genres contained within the bible and how best to read them (since the Bible is a collection of 66 different kinds of books, not one).

I'd always recommend that you read the Bible with others as well. If you don't have a very strong background in Christianity (and sometimes even if you do) then a lot of it may be confusing. Therefore its good to read it and discuss it with other Christians in a study group so you can ask questions and explore what it means.

Non-mobile: How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

One of the best books I ever read was "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth" published by Zondervan. It's a great "how to approach studying the Bible" before you get started studying the Bible. It helps you learn how to approach each genre of book, how they should be studied and how to avoid ineffective study. My whole approach to reading any part of the Bible was changed.

it makes sense to a dude who did the research. his footnotes go into great detail concerning his reasons for translating certain words certain ways. It's a very interesting read, even if you don't ultimately agree with him.

https://www.amazon.ca/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393333930

Go with the JPS or Artscroll if you want a more classical translation, or go with Alter which is a really nice edition.

You realize that we're now changing the subject? The question of whether or not same-sex relationships is sinful is different than the question "Can I disagree with what a person does but love him/her nonetheless?"

I have no real interest in engaging in a debate about the morality of same-sex behavior. If you're interested in a thoughtful articulation of my position I'd direct you to The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon. Here's what he says in answer to your fourth "test":
>The univocal stance against homesexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews.

Historians aren't merely considering the Old Testament narrative, for example, the call of Abraham, when they conclude that Yahwism (ancient Judaism) was henothesitic. The Pentateuch/Torah, while comprised of several early textual sources, did not reach its final form until late into Israel's nationhood, and maybe not until after the return from Babylonian captivity (537 BCE). So, most of what you're reading in the Old Testament was written much later than the period it depicts and that, as such, the writers/editors often shape the narrative to fit their own theological persuasions. In this case, the writers/editors would have been part of a more thoroughly monotheistic Judaism and this perspective would have shaped the way they brought the stories together.

On the other hand, earlier texts incorporated into the whole still reflect the latent henotheism of ancient Judaism, as I listed above. There's no real difference between identifying ancient Judaism as henotheistic and saying that "a lot of Israelites had a hard time holding to this concept [monotheism]." Henotheism doesn't even require worship of other deities only an assumption that other deities exist. The text assumes this (“You shall have no other gods before me”) and the common people believed it (as suggested by their frequently idolatry). You write, “…by the time Moses was on the scene, God had weaned them enough to give them the solid decree that he was the one and only God.” The only way you can draw this conclusion - since the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law do not declare that Yahweh is the one and only God; only that no other god is to be worshipped – is that you assume the Bible to be homogenous and feel free to impose the perspective of later writers onto the early Israelites.

You assume that the disparate documents compiled in the Bible are coherent, theologically consistent, and somehow point to an overarching divine plan, placing the Bible in a unique position among literature. That’s a lot to assume and awfully hard to defend. Since I consider ancient Judaism to have been henotheistic, you conclude that I “have not taken the time to really dive in and attempt to understand how it all fits together, nor understand that there were processes involved in accomplishing God's plan for the people group in question.”

If you’re interested in this, I’d suggest one or more of the following:

The Bible with Sources Revealed, by Richard Friedman

The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, by Michael Coogan

How to Read the Bible: History, Prophecy, Literature--Why Modern Readers Need to Know the Difference and What It Means for Faith Today, by Steven McKenzie

How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now, by James Kugel

I can't comment much about that book. However, I did find this book to be pretty helpful regard that.

James Kugel, How to Read the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449018176&sr=1-1&keywords=How+to+Read+the+Bible)

He does well to trace some of the history of Biblical interpretation with particular depth while at the same time covers a breadth of issues.

I thought I had one more, but I can't seem to find it on my shelf.

You are welcome!

I think I first came across it in this book which is definitely on the academic side of things but is approachable – I had no background in OT studies. It compares and contrasts Jewish thought to what we see in the cultures around it, to glean understanding both from what they had in common (eg, the divine council) and how they differed (eg, no images in the temple). Super interesting.

The author teaches at Wheaton.

I've read it multiple sources, here is one: http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322142785&sr=1-3

I don't have the book here with me so I can't point you to a certain chapter/page.

2. I'll recommend a book by John Walton
   http://www.amazon.ca/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500

someone actually was able to piece together one of the strands and published it as THE BOOK of J

>since some books of the claim inspiration or divine influence (for instance, prophetic works), the question is whether they are authentic. when isaiah says that "thus says yahweh", is it the word of yahweh, or not?

Now you are moving the goal posts. That does not address the authenticity of the text's allegedly divine source (eg, "Who really painted this picture?"). Nevertheless, the answer is still the same -- there's no objective way to discern from the text whether Isaiah was speaking for God, for himself, or for someone else (assuming arguendo someone by that name actually spoke those words in the first place). You gotta have faith or go home.

>in precisely the same way that geology studied in a good university doesn't disprove the global flood of noah. there are YECs that end up with college degrees in geology, and they make very similar arguments.

Your analogy fails for at least one very basic reason: scientists have a vast range of experience with floods and similar worldly phenomena. We know what causes floods, we know what sorts of signs they leave behind, and we know that the water has to come from somewhere. To believe in a worldwide flood, you would have to ignore what we know about floods, the conservation of matter, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. A divine text, however, lacks that basis for comparison. There are NO texts objectively confirmed to be of divine origin, so that we can compare the Bible. There's no way to objectively identify the signs of divine intervention so that we can look for them in the Bible.

You are correct that I am not a scholar of textual analysis at any detailed level. It has been years since I read "The Book of J" (a modern book about these issues) and I do not recall the details. Nevertheless, I am well aware that the Bible is a patchwork of ancient texts amending and expanding earlier texts. You and I simply fail to draw the same conclusions from those facts, because you and I do not have the same expectations from a divinely inspired text.

>you've made a claim that can't be proved -- it's not my job to disprove your unfalsifiable claim.

Absolutely NOT! I have reported my subjective faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but that's distinct from a claim of objective knowledge. The only claim I have made is about what I believe, not about any objective fact. YOU, on the other hand, have affirmatively claimed that the text of the Bible objectively reveals on its face a lack of divine inspiration. It's not a claim you can support, but you have insisted repeatedly that you can. You gave yourself an impossible burden of proof, but you are unable or unwilling to see that. Shifting the burden is unacceptable -- it is still yours.

> any other assumption is nonsense, for the above reason. is the text different from human texts, or isn't it? if it is, why? if it isn't, why treat it like it is?

Those are the questions YOU must answer, to meet your burden of proof. To you, they are rhetorical questions with self-evident answers, but not to me. Again, we have no text (with an objectively confirmed holy source) for comparison. Precisely how should a divinely inspired text differ from a purely human text, and can you identify any objective reason for saying so?

Without accepting an improperly placed burden of proof, let me tell you how my beliefs address those questions:

If a deity exists at all, that deity clearly insists on faith (belief without objective knowledge). I have inductively concluded that it is impossible to logically or empirically prove the existence of a deity, but that does not in itself mean a deity does not exist, nor does it affect the likelihood of a deity's existence. Unlike natural phenomena (eg, electromagnetism or gravity), our hypothetical deity is volitional -- it can decide when, how and to what extent it will act, so that it can avoid empirical detection and therefore avoid mooting faith. If a deity exists, then that deity is sufficiently wise and powerful to avoid objective proof.

If a holy book were to clearly and objectively demonstrate divine origin, then that would necessarily establish the existence of the divine and thus moot the role of faith. Your claim boils down to a complaint that God won't submit to scientific tests. We knew that already, and we also knew that faith (or its absence) is the only factor determining whether one is religious. As a corollary, faith is also the only factor determining whether one will believe a particular book is holy. There is no objective test of the text which will change this.

>"seminary" generally means "catholic" or similar groups which are generally not "fundamentalist".

English. Do YOU speak it? Many, many protestant pastors graduate from protestant seminaries. While some may very well drop out and abandon their faith, that is a personal decision, the reasons for which you can only speculate about.

>>I have no reason to challenge the holy texts of other religions.

>so you accept that they are divinely inspired as well?

Really, are we even communicating? I meant what I said. Those other holy books might be divinely inspired or they might not -- I do not have an opinion.

>have you every considered the idea that you might be christian simply out of ignorance (or apathy) towards other religions which you think may or may not be valid? and that this might be worth looking into?

Of course. I'm Christian because I was reared that way and because my faith works for me. When my faith is stronger, I experience greater hope, love, joy, peace, strength, courage and compassion. Even if that's just a placebo effect (there's no way to objectively know), it is still an effect. I would be an irrational fool to risk losing it for no good reason.

>what makes the bible any different?

The Bible is the one that helps me, and that is enough of a difference for me.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

It's been years since I've read it, but I remember enjoying K.A. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament in my undergrad years.

Why is Christianity ridiculous? I suggest you reading

http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/were-adam-and-eve-historical-figures

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/is-there-a-historical-adam

or Kenneth Kitchens book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament ".

I just checked the wikipedia page about it and I am not sure if that is a good unbiased source.

Further searching showed me this book. Have you read this one? https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962

Those passages are in context, would you like to read them in the new international version or a literal translation? I quoted KJV because that is what is seen as a fairly standard bible. If you think that there are different interpretations of them then please say what you think they are. My advice? ignore the whole book, it is impossible to read the whole thing without either ignoring the contradicting parts of the bible or going mad trying to fulfill both parts.

Critical thought applied to the bible gives you this, which is no different than aesop or any other storyteller trying to instill values through the telling of stories.

There's a lot we can unfold from this one question. I want to give you a thorough answer, but that means this will get long. I hope you'll hang with me here. :-)

First, we can still establish some widely accepted facts about the beginning of Christianity (such as the facts I listed for you) even if we consider the Gospel accounts unreliable. Historians can generally tell when Herodotus is embellishing to satisfy his desire for elements of karmic justice in his histories, or when Tacitus lets his pro-Roman bias get in the way of accuracy. Even with bias (which, let's be honest, all historians have) we can still extract facts and assign degrees of historical certainty to them. I think we have good reason to believe the Gospels are reliable (at least by the standards of their genre and period), but we don't have to agree on this in order to discuss the resurrection hypothesis.

Second, the dates usually assigned to the Gospels (between 30-70 years after Jesus's death, depending on whom you ask) are not as bad as you might think when you consider written history at that time. Liberal scholars agree that Mark was certainly written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, at a time when many witnesses of Jesus would have still been alive and thus around to corroborate or refute the stories. We should also consider that some of Paul's letters show up even earlier, with his first letter to the Corinthian church being dated to around AD 55. And in this same letter, Paul preserved in written form a creed that formed part of the oral tradition surrounding early Christianity. It's extremely basic, unlike creeds that developed centuries later, but it does speak of the death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Most New Testament scholars pin this creed's origin down to AD 35 or so, within a few years of Jesus's death, which means that the Christian belief in the resurrection was already set down as oral tradition decades prior to the actual writing of the Gospel accounts.

(As an aside, I sometimes hear people raise the objection that it's hard to remember what happened last year, let alone 30 or 40 years ago. I would say that for the people who were closest to Jesus, the crucifixion and resurrection almost certainly formed flashbulb memories that remained vivid decades after the fact. I can't tell you what I had for lunch last Tuesday, but I can tell you all sorts of details about where I was and what I was doing during the events of September 11, 2001. I remember exactly where I was on the road when I heard the radio simulcast of Peter Jennings announcing that the first tower had collapsed, and I remember the shock and emotion in Jennings's voice. And that was what, 17 years ago? Major events like that have a strange way of sticking when ordinary events don't.)

Third, at this time in history the literacy rates were rather poor. Although the New Testament documents directly benefited from the universality of Koine Greek due to the conquests of Alexander the Great, the number of people who could read or write (according to an estimate I heard recently from Michael Licona) was around 10% and 3%, respectively. For this reason oral tradition was a highly developed skill, and the Jewish rabbinical oral tradition was especially advanced, with sects like the Pharisees priding themselves on being able to quote the entire Old Testament from memory. So naturally the early church, being mostly Jewish, relied on oral tradition when it started. Unlike a game of telephone, however, in which there is no error correction procedure, the oral tradition as used in Jewish and other Near/Middle Eastern cultures had constant opportunities for error correction as it was recited to audiences, and this helped to preserve the core facts accurately.

Fourth, the Gospels bear many marks of authenticity. That is to say, there are things in there you would not expect to see if they were forgeries. For example, take the traditional names of the Gospel authors. Why choose a minor disciple who was formerly a hated tax collector (Matthew), a student of Peter (Mark), and a student of Paul (Luke)? Why not go for the big names to assert your authority? (And in fact the later Gospels that we know to be forgeries, such as the Gospel of Peter, did this very thing.) Also, why include tough verses like Mark 6:5 or Mark 13:32, which make Jesus sound limited and less than omniscient? In a culture where men's testimony was valued far more than women's, why insist that the first people to discover the empty tomb were women? For that matter, why portray Jesus's closest followers as fleeing like cowards while the women remained at the cross? And of course, why leave in the contradictions that people still bring up today instead of taking the time to harmonize the accounts before publishing?

Finally, the New Testament documents are among the most (if not the most) copied documents of their time. Copying was important then for preservation—better to have as many copies as possible so that if some are destroyed you haven't lost everything. Copying is important today for error correction—thanks to the thousands of extant manuscripts, we can tell when verses or passages were added by scribes. The major modern translations either remove these sections entirely or set them off with brackets and provide a footnote indicating that the earliest and best manuscripts do not have that particular section. Despite not having any originals, the textual purity of the New Testament is established to the point that we can be certain that 99% of the words in a Greek New Testament match what was originally written, and the remaining 1% about which there is some debate do not affect any doctrinal issues. Even agnostic Bart Ehrman, who seems to get quoted a lot on this sub, agrees that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants.

There are a few more dimensions we could add to this, but rather than take my word for it, you can get a more complete view from an actual scholar if you read Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels. (I haven't personally read this book yet, but it's on my to-read list. I'm familiar with Craig's work through his contributions to other books, however.)

There are a ton of great books on this, but the landmark scholarly book is Blomberg's on the Gospel accounts. A really good overview of history of translation is Journey From Text to Translation. These two books are basically the best you can get in terms of thoroughness and research.

Let me know if you want smaller or cheaper alternatives and I can get them to you, a really good intro "fun" style book is TPJ's How we Got the Bible. I personally can't stand that "fluffy and fun" tone, but some people really like it and grooves well for them.

Don't be afraid to bring this up to your pastor or community group and do a study together if they don't know the answer.

Hey sorry for the delay getting back to you. I think BirdieNZ nailed it. The Law of Moses is a covenant of law but not a covenant of works. What's the difference?

The Covenant of Works (with Adam) had in view the full picture of man's relationship to God. Perfect obedience was required to maintain that relationship. If Adam obeyed perfectly then he would live and no salvation would be necessary since there would be nothing to be saved from. This is not the case with Israel receiving the Law, since:

1. All are already fallen in Adam and in need of salvation. The perfect obedience ship already sailed. (Rom 3-5; Gal 3-5; 1 Cor 15)
   
   
2. Israel received the Law as part of redemptive history. God's first words to Moses were "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", pointing back to Abraham and the covenant God made with him and was continuing to keep.
   
   
3. The order is backwards for Israel if the Law is a covenant of works: God redeemed Israel from Egyptian slavery then gave them the Law.
   
   
4. The Law included a system of sacrifices for sins, which both (1) pre-supposes law-breaking; and (2) points forward in the COG to Christ.
   
   
5. God had already promised grace to Abraham and his offspring, and that promise cannot be undone by the presence of the Law. Regarding this promise, Paul explains:
   
   > 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:15-18
   
   The Covenant of Law was "a guardian" (Gal 3:24), given to national Israel to instruct them in the will of the God who redeemed them. This was never intended as a means of salvation (Rom 3-4; Gal 3).
   
   Here's a perfect explanation of the above from Scripture:
   
   > 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 10 and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. 11 You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today. Deut 7:6-11
   
   It's true that there are blessings and curses associated with the Law, but note the language of the blessings and curses (e.g., Deut 28). It's all about the land and the enemies around them, but never about salvation, which is conferred by Christ under the Covenant of Grace. Justification always has, and always will, come by grace through faith (Rom 4). Paul (Rom 2:29) and Moses (Deut 10:12-17) both say true "circumcision" is a matter of the heart (i.e., faith). Paul says not everyone born of Abraham had faith (Rom 9). Regardless of what happened to Israel, from Achan to Babylon, everyone with genuine faith was saved under the Covenant of Grace.
   
   I know I've already said it, but I'll recommend again The Christ of the Covenants. Best $12 you'll ever spend! :-)

Here is a fine short book on covenant theology.

https://www.amazon.com/Far-Curse-Found-Covenant-Redemption/dp/0875525105

This is also great.

https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Covenants-Palmer-Robertson/dp/0875524184

This helped me a lot - https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Covenants-Palmer-Robertson/dp/0875524184

O' Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants is your best bet.

Out of curiosity, why do you want modern?

I've been reading Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ recently. It might be the best book on CT from a baptistic perspective out there, though its 300+ years old. Alternatively The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology is excellently done, scholarly and modern. It can be a bit tedious, since it was originally written in French as a master's thesis.

From a presbyterian perspective, I read The Christ of the Covenants and found it excellent and winsome. A number of reformed colleges and seminaries use it as a textbook.

You should be able to get any of those from the Christian Book Nook, or I can lend them to you at church on Sunday if you'd rather save some cash.

Maybe he's just a really big Donald Knuth fanboy?

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/3-16-Bible-Texts-Illuminated/dp/0895792524


|Country|Link|Charity Links|
|:-----------|:------------|:------------|
|USA|smile.amazon.com|EFF|
|UK|www.amazon.co.uk|Macmillan|
|Spain|www.amazon.es||
|France|www.amazon.fr||
|Germany|www.amazon.de||
|Japan|www.amazon.co.jp||
|Canada|www.amazon.ca||
|Italy|www.amazon.it||
|India|www.amazon.in||




To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

Most recent addition:
http://www.amazon.com/3-16-Bible-Texts-Illuminated/dp/0895792524/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212948804&sr=8-1

To contrast that with Donald Knuth's 3:16 book, an example of a guy who actually does know that verse pretty well. The odd thing about that book is that Knuth was rather disappointed in the Book of St. John as it proved to be rather boring compared to the rest of the books of the Bible.

Too bad more people who use the Bible don't put as much effort into actually studying the book. Sort of like the clown who posted the original comment on Steam.

Donald Knuth books? I wonder if this counts: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0895792524?pc_redir=1395648537&robot_redir=1

And for bonus points, my dad has played volleyball with him.

Funny, I was looking for the same thing today. I didn't find one that covers the entire period you asked for (I think it's too large a period for just one book) but the one that I ended up considering was A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC. Unfortunately it's a bit too expensive for me so I only saved it to my wish list but looking at the table of content it was exactly what I was looking for. I think this book together with another covering the history of Rome should be enough for a decent coverage of the entire period you're interested in.

I recommend the book The Ancient History of the Near East.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-Near-East-3000/dp/1405149116

Many cultures have been wiped out or assimilated over the millennia.

As an example of modern assimilation, my family. My father moved here, to the US, following the Iran-Iraq War. He was Muslim (Shia), Persian-speaking, and traditional. Now? He's Christian, English-speaking (entirely, because Persian is rare), and liberal compared to his old, right-winged self. I was raised with English as my primary language, with American culture before Iranian culture, etc.

We are assimilated. My blood may be Iranian, but we are Americans.

Are you referring to

The Ancient Near East by John McLaughlin

or

A History of the Ancient Near East ca 3000 - 323 BC by Marc Van De Mieroop

What to read...

There's so much!

"The Ancient Near East" by Amelié Khurt is a great overall history.

Someone already mentioned History begins at Sumer and Ancient Iraq, they're a bit dated but still quite good. For a simple synchronic overview with nice maps look at Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia by Michael Roaf. Also another good history book A History of the Ancient Near East by Marc Van de Mieroop.

Regarding texts, there's a great book that does the history of Mesoptamia through primary sources The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation ed. Mark Chavalas.

That should get you started. Those book are all quite current or still very usable, let me know if you need anything else. As for later periods (i.e. post-Achaemenid) that's not my field... I read A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani which was quite good and as far as I understand a well respected overview of later Mesopotamian history.

Hey there brother, I would encourage you to do a little more research into how canon was established.

A few points:

• In 325 AD there was no talk of establishing canon at the Council of Nicea.
  
• For a long period of time before any councils met, most Scripture was widely agreed upon. Councils didn't invent Scripture out of thin air, but simply officially stated what almost everyone already agreed upon.
  
  Further light reading:
  
  
• http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/canon-of-new-testament-as-self.html
  
• http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
  
  More reading:
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Revisited-Establishing-Authority-Testament/dp/1433505002/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1342625239&sr=8-8
  
• http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342625239&sr=8-2

>I'm not sure I agree that there are religions that aren't based in revelation (buddhism maybe?).

Some forms of Hinduism too.

> Deism doesn't sound like a religion to me at all, but rather a philosophy held by some Christians.

No, Deism isn't a religion. It's not Christian either.

Deism is the idea that there is a God who created the Universe and set it in motion according to natural laws. Deists reject all revelation, relying instead on reasoning and observation of nature for their beliefs, so when a Deist says God created the Universe, they do not mean by creationism. In Deism, God's characteristics cannot be known; this is a God who does not intervene in the Universe and does not have a 'personal relationship' with people. Deism is also highly skeptical of so called 'religious mysteries', metaphysics and organized religion. These are the common shared beliefs that Deists hold, but since Deism is so minimalist on the concept of God, there are lots of different beliefs held among Deists. Most, if not all, of that does not fit with Christianity.

However, there are 'Christian Deists' who normally subscribe to all the above with the addition that we should take a lot of our morals from Christ and his teachings. Most Christian Deists would reject the miracles of Christ, and the idea that Jesus Christ was God "in the flesh" since that doesn't square with the Deist view that God does not intervene, or that people can have a personal relationship with God or know God or know his characteristics. Christian Deists focus on Christ's humanity rather than Divinity. See the Jefferson Bible.

If you want to learn more about it, I suggest also reading Thomas Paine The Age of Reason, or taking a look at Deism.com as an introduction to Deism, because Deism is very widely misunderstood.

Edit: there is also /r/Deism

The Jefferson Bible

Can you refute Cassuto's take on it?

http://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2ro5qp/understanding_passages_with_contradictory/cnikit9

Cassuto's book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Documentary-Hypothesis-Umberto-Cassuto/dp/9657052351

Layman, so I don't know if the academic position is to "hey we don't have the time to refute every Rabbi's take on reconciling creation 1 and 2", or if it's because Cassuto makes a good case. I've been unable to find a refutation of Cassuto's findings on creation.

I'd suggest anything by: Richard Carrier (esp. "On the Historicity of Jesus",
or Bart Ehrman (esp. "Forged: Writing in the Name of God-", and 'Jesus Interrupted'),
or Richard Dawkins (esp. "The God Delusion")
or Israel Finkelstein ("The Bible Unearthed", gives a good overview of the origin of biblical books.

You also have the option of reading books written by actual bible scholars, like Bart Ehrman.

Try for example "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" (https://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors-ebook/dp/B004IWR3JW) or "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)" (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions-ebook/dp/B001TKD4XA/). Both books discuss real and deep problems with the Bible that are quite difficult to dismiss.

And there is also "The Invention of God" by Thomas Römer (https://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer-ebook/dp/B01985ZGGA) which presents evidence on how the abrahamitic god evolved as an amalgamation of several gods from the arabian/middle eastern desert, all explained by using the Bible itself as a source. Beware, though, that this book is a much heavier read than the ones by Ehrman.

Would you happen to know what's the difference in the content of Forged and his later book Forgery and Counterforgery?

I was thinking of buying it, but it sounds so overlapping with Forged.

> You said "some" are accepted not to be by Paul, therefore its a trick to ask questions about the authors intent. This is a pretty stark contradiction.

No, you are conflating two separate issues.

1. We don't know what the authors' intent was because we don't know who they were in many cases, and, more importantly, we cannot ask them. Hence, divining the authors' intent is a game of pure speculation.
   
2. There are forgeries in the Bible. This is explained clearly and at the layperson's level by Bart Ehrman in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors-ebook/dp/B004IWR3JW/ref=sr_1_5
   
   > That does not mean that Jesus could not be speaking literally, he very well could be. He did say quite a few culturally outrageous things, some of which he clearly expects nobody to be able to follow i.e. when he states the part of the way to attain eternal life is to give up all earthly things, his apostles protest that its not possible and jesus confirms that with man it is not possible.
   
   Thank you for admitting that Jesus advocated extreme poverty. The early church also practiced small-scale communism, forcing new members of the cult to give up their possessions, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Jesus was just kidding. (They thought that Jesus was coming "very soon", so it's hard to blame them.) Jesus also preached self-mutilation as a means of avoiding sin. (Mat 5:29-30, Mat 18:8-9) Yes, Jesus said some screwed-up stuff that Christians are wise to discount and ignore. It sounds like you are making my argument for me.
   
   > Other scholars have offered that the use of the term hate in that context was meant more as a comparative word meaning 'to love less', stating the the idea of passionate hatred didn't exist in this context.
   
   Yes, I have heard this bad argument before. I believe there is at least one translation of the NT that translates the word "hate" as "not love as much", which is not the first time a translation was used to change scripture support contemporary values. Yes, "hate" means "to love less". It also means "do not love at all, and wish ill upon". To call what Jesus meant as "loving less" instead of "hate" is spin, and an example of what I call The Christian Narrative. I repeat: Christians do NOT believe in the Bible. The Word of God is the Christian Narrative, NOT the Bible. The Bible is interpreted so that it fits the narrative. The Bible supports the Narrative, not the other way around.
   
   I will make this more clear:My guess is that when you preach Rom 3:23 to someone else, then you don't spend five paragraphs trying to figure out the "intent of the author". It's not necessary to do that because Rom 3:23 already conforms to your values and thus it does not require any "interpretation".
   
   > I would challenge you to explain why the literal reading should be the assumed one, I would challenge that that is not how you approach life in general.
   
   Of course it's not how I approach life in general, and that is because life in general is not purported to be the perfect word of a divine being. The Bible is supposed to be the ultimate story of reality and how I should live my life. How am I supposed to regard life and general in the same way? That's an entirely unfair comparison, and thus it's a bogus argument.
   
   My challenge back to you is for you to explain to me which Bible verses you take literally (Rom 3:23 and John 3:16 perhaps?), and which ones you don't take literally, and why you don't take them literally. The reason why you cannot take some verses literally because they clash with extra-biblical values that are more important, and thus those offending verses must be "interpreted" to suit the higher calling. I submit that loving your mother is more important that obeying everything Jesus told you to do, and I believe you agree with that because that is part of your Christian Narrative, which is the Word of God. Not the Bible.

> Does he mention the Codex Escalada which mentions Juan Diego and is dated around the same time as the painting?

If you go and read the article yourself, you'll see that he does mention it and explains why it's not convincing - it's a single scrap of parchment of unknown provenance that just happened to appear right around the time when Juan Diego was being considered for canonization. Even if the "codex" is authentic, there are (AFAIK) no other contemporary sources to corroborate it. So all we really know is that someone made this piece of writing/drawing - perhaps for the express purpose of convincing people that the legend of Juan Diego was a real event. There's a long history of Christian writers lying to advance their own theological views that goes back to the New Testament authors, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case here too.

>Also, are you aware Juan Diego was made a saint?

Yes, and I don't consider it relevant. The Catholic Church decides who becomes a saint, and they have a conflict of interest – this gives them more miracle claims that they can present to their congregations as proof that their beliefs are correct. Even if they're not deliberately deceiving people or fabricating evidence, the fact is that the people doing these investigations are Catholic themselves. They're invested in their faith and they want these miracles to be real, which makes them biased.

Give it a read! I gift a copy to all devout Christian family members: https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1604591285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485115764&sr=8-1&keywords=jefferson+bible

Christian deism doesn't recognize Jesus as the son of a god, nor as a man speaking the word or intent of a god. It's more about sharing the same values and culture as Christians. A god created the universe, but the god didn't share teachings with humans or interact with humans.

Thomas Jefferson is a good example. For his own reading, he meticulously edited the New Testament, cutting and pasting a new version that focused on the teachings of Jesus, with all of Jesus' miracles removed and most supernatural elements removed. In the end, you just have a book about a philosopher. It's known as the Jefferson Bible. You can buy one on Amazon.

I tend to view deists of that period as almost atheists, even though they would have opposed that notion. Many answers/theories/explanations they'd want about the origin of life and the universe simply didn't exist, and it was a foreign idea to think of these things naturally occurring, so they believed in a god as a necessity for understanding the most basic questions regarding life.

The Jefferson Bible is an interesting read indeed.

Yep. Here are my sources:

1. Jesus Reconsidered
   
2. The Five Gospels
   
3. The Writings of the New Testament
   
4. [The Inculturation of the Jesus Tradition]
   (http://www.amazon.com/Inculturation-Jesus-Tradition-Impact-Cultures/dp/1563382954/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)
   
5. Over ten years of study of the origins of Christianity, many of those seeks new and clever ways for me to debunk theists.

Only closed minded Christians (and quite frankly blind followers who can't think for themselves) believe this. I would strongly sugguest that some of you guys read Seven Days That Divide the World.

Lennox talks about how back in the day, science was saying that the earth revolved around the sun, but the church was saying that the earth was the center of the universe due too several Biblical passages. But nowadays everyone believe what the scientists were saying.

Now this leads to the gapping issue. Where science has these gaps, and Christians use God to fill these gaps, and Lennox goes indepth about this issue in his book. It's a very cool read.

TLDR: Christians can't blatantly deny facts from science.

Edit: Thank you Mr. PoisonPotato

Another resource I really like is The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter which you can pick up for about 8 dollars, used on amazon Alter is a Professor of Hebrew at Berkeley as well as honorific titles elsewhere he has gone back and not only given a better translation than a lot of the original Masoretic translation but also adds in some historical context as well. It is a fairly scholarly work, that is some might find it a bit dry but I think it is a great addition to learning.

>It posits that the Torah/Pentateuch/OT/Hebrew Bible... whatever u call it, was written in a fragmented way and compiled by diff sources/writers based on analysis of different writing styles used in the scripture (aka use of Yahweh as the name for God or use of Elohim/El)

https://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hypothesis-Umberto-Cassuto/dp/9657052351

Here's a great book that debunks the DH on what you're describing. Just blocking off names by YKVK and Elokim is not a thoughtful argument. Both names connote something different so their context matters, as do the other names of God laced throughout the Torah kEl, kEl Shakkai, and so on.

As for the story about Isaac, there's no inconsistency. He was brought as an offering, (here's a great essay on the lesson/meaning of that story), and since he was not offered, he became what's called "hekdesh," which means he was something set aside for a purpose of holiness (as one sets aside a certain thing for an offering, they are supposed to bring that specific thing and not something different). As a result, Isaac never leaves the land of Israel the rest of his life, unlike his father did and unlike his son Jacob eventually does.

The real issue with all this redactor theory is that no one is willing to claim who the redactor is. Judaism makes claims on who wrote every book contained in our bible, sometimes even specific verses. The proponents of the DH are constantly suggesting and resuggesting theories as every theory they've proposed gets holes poked in it. While people poke holes in Judaism's claims, we don't huddle up and suggest another one as there's no real need to.

Umberto Cassuto is good.