What is Reddit's opinion of How (Not) to Read the Bible: Making Sense of the Anti-women, Anti-science, Pro-violence, Pro-slavery and Other Crazy-Sounding Parts of Scripture?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

One phrase I read recently that has really helped is that the Bible was written for us but not to us (from How (Not) to Read the Bible: Making Sense of the Anti-women, Anti-science, Pro-violence, Pro-slavery and Other Crazy-Sounding Parts of Scripture). Thus we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our ancient near east predecessors to understand how to properly understand the Old Testament.

Of course, that is easier said then done, but here are some principles I have used in my readings.

First, because God is not a cosmic dictator who orders us around like marionettes, he has to work with us as we are. The Israelites were not at an ideal moral place, so he didn't give them morally ideal laws. As Christ said regarding divorce, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). When we compare the strange (to us) and seemingly disturbing commandments in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we have to remember this. It also points us to the creation to get an accurate picture of the way God wants us to live.

Second, because the ancient near east was consumed by frequent warfare, God's justice would best be communicated by stories of military victory and defeat. When Israel acts justly against evil, she is victorious; when she collaborates with sinful nations, she is destroyed or held in captivity.

Another important point is that hyperbole is a frequent rhetorical device used in Scripture. So when the Old Testament says that the Israelites completely wiped out the Caananites, we know this is hyperbole because Caananites show up afterwards! But why the hyperbole? Because the Caananites are the symbols of idolatry and turning away from God, and God's justice is absolute, even if Israelites military victories weren't.

Ugh. The old T2:11 trope is old hat and one addressed by finer minds than me. Basic Hermeneutics dispenses with it and several others. In short, context matters.

That said, there's a GREAT book that answers this question and many others like it that are kind of "back pocket" objections by many who haven't read the entirety of the bible:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Read-Bible-Crazy-Sounding-ebook/dp/B085XNGKP3

One of my favorite recent quotes I came across is "Never read a bible verse." The fact is, the numbered verse were only introduced in the last 1000 years to aid references and citations. So taking things out of context is a recipe for misunderstanding. You need to understand the verse in the context of the sentence in the context of the book in the context of the author and to whom they are writing.

> I mean that with enough context, you can back your way out of anything. In the middle ages, the bible was inerrantly, literally true. As more knowledge and science became available to the masses, the interpretations of the bible changed.

With all due respect, this is not "moving the goalposts." I'm not sure what it is, but it's not accurate. There is a difference between how the Bible has been leveraged over time, sure. It was used to do terrible things (i.e., the Spanish Inquisition, certain brands of white supremacy, etc), but that has nothing to do with its content or theology. "With enough context you can back your way out of anything" is a self-negating statement. With enough context (i.e., knowing ALL context), you can't back your way out of the truth. It becomes absolute.

And this is a theme with secular moralist arguments. For example:

> It seems to me that the world of God should be immutable, absolutely clear,

Why? This isn't an argument, this is a statement. Show your work.

> If Christianity were true, it shouldn't have schisms and sects.

Why?, again, show your work. This is a statement or a conclusion, not an argument based on reason or evidence.

The existence of the Bible doesn't guarantee that people will be good. it doesn't mean people won't leverage it for their own good. it doesn't mean people won't twist its meaning. Its content tells us, in fact, that we should expect that since it happened BEFORE THE BIBLE EXISTED. (See 1 Cor. 1.)

> And it shouldn't justify the morality of things like slavery, Yahweh-sanctioned murder, and genocide by providing "context."

This is a strawman and a misstatement of what I said, and again, a statement not an argument. Please show your work.

Again, read this book, and you'll see your assertions are incorrect based on the context of the stories you are quoting.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Read-Bible-Crazy-Sounding-ebook/dp/B085XNGKP3

There are a LOT of other books that are similar, but this one is 101-level enough to be a good starting point for people who haven't read the entirety of the stories and have unintentionally missed the context.

Unless you're arguing that context never matters...?

Be careful. Just because a story is contained in the bible doesn't mean it's advocating the contents of the story. What David did to Bathsheba and her husband was evil, and that played a part in the story later.

But also be careful when reading texts you may not understand. There's a difference between reading literally/metaphorically, and just missing it cause of your translation. For the answer regarding Elisha and the bears check THIS. The phrase "Little Children" doesn't mean kids, and is used elsewhere in the bible to refer to adults acting childish.

That said, I would recommend the following book to you:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Read-Bible-Crazy-Sounding-ebook/dp/B085XNGKP3

There are others like it, but it provides answers to the kinds of issues you are raising, and helps provide instruction on HOW to read the bible so you don't come away with inaccurate assumptions based on individual readings. The best advice I've heard is, "Never read a bible verse." It stems from the fact that the bible and the books in it, was not written with verse numbers and chapter names. Each book was a single work, and MUCH confusion has come up over the years because someone has read a verse out of context. You have to read the verse, the paragraph it is in, the chapter it is in, the book it is in, and also understand WHO wrote it, WHO they wrote it to, and WHY it was written.

Yours are honest question, but they are not new questions, and they are questions that have been answered for a long, long time.