Posted on 04/20/2018 6:38:49 AM PDT by caww
Gentleman’s Quarterly has proposed refashioning contemporary culture by unmooring it from the past, a feat that can be accomplished — in part — by updating lists of required reading.
First among these “overrated books” is the Bible, for which the GQ editors reserve some particularly choice epithets.... It is “repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned,” or, in a nutshell, “certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced.”
The core of the GQ proposal is the surgical excision of books that serve to keep traditional values alive.
As simple as it is straightforward, GQ’s plan follows the tried-and-true political strategy of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian communist mastermind who explained in great detail how to overcome a “cultural hegemony” by replacing it with a new one (counter-hegemony).
The brave new world that the cultural left wishes to establish cannot come about as long as “folklore” (which includes art, literature, history, and other sources of national identity) remains rooted in the ideas and values of the Judeo-Christian West.
GQ’s proposal can only be viewed in these terms. It is not about suggesting more “entertaining” literature. It is about changing the cultural hegemony for the generations to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That will be then.....currently and in the future they will continue to grow and infect here and in the world. Apart from salvation they, as with others, have no hope.
I have never read GQ, and their writers are making sure I never will.
That certainly is one point of view. An alternative point of view is that the Jewish “Septuagint” was 200 to 300 years old by the time of Jesus, and was in wide use by Jewish people throughout the Mediterranean world including in Judea.
Hmmmm ... Either the entire collection of 73 "books" is inspired by God, or it is not. I will not presume to declare that any part of the Bible is of less value or authority than any other part. That would seem to me to be arrogance bordering on hubris.
True, they were put on "paper" at different times, by different human authors, for different immediate purposes, and for different immediate audiences. BUT ... they are ALL the voice of God speaking to us directly through the ages.
Ain’t that the truth. Ok, it’s almost midnight where I live, so I will bow out. 👍😴
OK.night
Yes. Love one another, do unto others, thou shalt not kill, steal, covet, lie, etc. are sooooo overrated.
I’m sure God thinks GQ is one of the most overrated magazines of all time.
Hmmmm ... Either the entire collection of 73 “books” is inspired by God, or it is not.
And the bible never claims to be inspired by God. Rather, it says that “all scripture” is inspired by God (2 tim 3:16). And “scripture” simply means “something in writing. And 2 Tim 3 is in a letter written before the NT was compiled. So, what to make of 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude, The acts of the apostles, etc.? Are they as valuable as the red letter text in the Gospels? And isn’t Proverbs really a book on how to be civilized, happy, valuable and prosperous? i.e. the equivalent of modern motivational speakers who, truth be told, are mostly just putting Proverbs in modern terms.
I view the old testament through 2 tim 3 and apply, to some degree, the same reasoning to the NT. But when some of the writers contradict themselves almost within the same sentence, I must accept that it is not all to be taken at face value. Either that, or it’s nonsense. I choose the former and amplify it with prayer.
BUT ... they are ALL the voice of God speaking to us directly through the ages.
"ALL".
Not "some". Not "most". Not "the parts I particularly like".
"All".
Yes, even the "begats" (for example) are there for a reason.
My answer? YES. And Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't write in red ink, nor did they use chapter and verse numbers.
“ALL”.
Not “some”. Not “most”. Not “the parts I particularly like”.
“All”.
Yes, even the “begats” (for example) are there for a reason.
BTW, I’m asking sincere questions. I’m not trying to be argumentative. Rather, I’m re-evaluating everything I believe to purify my stance on this. When I was a new christian I simply believed stuff because people older or “more spiritual” than me said so. I’m working past that for obvious reasons. I’m trying to find anything in the NT that tells me I must accept every word in it as though it is God speaking those very words to me. I’m not finding it.
Yes, I believe the bible was written by men inspired by God, but that is true of many pastors today. However, we don’t staple their sermons to the end of the bible as new books within the cannon. I’m trying to nail down this whole thing and it is challenging.
What adds to the complexity is that if you try to take the bible at face value it contradicts itself all over the place, which means the whole thing is baloney. But if you try to “discern” the general points it is making, many people fault you for “creating your own meaning” from the bible.
The good news is that it makes the bible a very personal thing. The bad news is that it can create endless arguments between otherwise quite sincere people.
I wonder if the GQ editorial board collectively have read three thousand books (fiction and non fiction)?
I have and the Bible is at the top of the list.
Think about it, what if there are sentient beings out there?
What would YOU want them to read before getting here?
5.56mm
Bibles will still be on store shelves long after GQ has disappeared from them. Of that much I am sure.
Robroys woman,
I can appreciate your quandary in just how to understand what Scripture is and how we got the Bible we have today.
You are correct when you point out that when the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, the “Bible” was the Old Testament. That is the Bible Jesus and the Apostles used. However, there are hints, even in the New Testament that some writings were already viewed as scripture. For example, in 2 Peter 3:15-18, the Apostle Peter says:
“15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
Notice how Peter seems to equate Paul’s writings with “the other Scriptures.” Admittedly, this is only one passage, but interesting.
Remember too that the entire New Testament was completed prior to 70 AD. How do we know this? Partly because of manuscripts we have recovered and, also because none of the New Testament writings ever mention the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD by the Romans. This was a major prophesy made by Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel. Surely, had the Temple been destroyed that would have been mentioned somewhere in one of the New Testament writings had any of them been written after 70 AD.
My point is that the New Testament writings were completed within 40 years of Jesus’ life death, and resurrection. That’s very early on in the history of the Christian Church.
The New Testament canon (I.e. writings that were recognized as inspired scripture on equal par with Old Testament writings) was not officially agreed upon (and still isn’t between Catholic and Protestant views) until the 7th century. But, in practice and in usage, the 27 New Testament books were already viewed as scripture by the end of the 4th century.
We know this from the early writings of the early “Church Fathers”. Who were these men? They were influential Christian leaders of various churches after the last living original Apostles died. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Origen, St. Augustine, and Athanasius.
Their writings give evidence that the New Testament books we have today were all viewed as scripture and treated as such.
You mentioned more than once, that to take the Bible at face value meant that to do so would mean having to deal with numerous “contradictions”. I’m curious if you would give some specific examples of this?
You mentioned more than once, that to take the Bible at face value meant that to do so would mean having to deal with numerous “contradictions”. I’m curious if you would give some specific examples of this?
A good example is in 1 John. If a person who is not compelled to believe or not believe the bible just read the following, they would probably say, “this is poppycock”.
Compare 1 John 1:8-10 and 3:9
1:8-10
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
And as you know, there are other scriptures used to both prove that Christians never commit sin once they are saved, and scriptures that are used to say that even claiming such a thing is blasphemous.
I actually have a name for my stand on this whole meme: “How many times did the rooster crow?”
And the answer is as in so much of scripture, “that’s not the point.” :)
BTW, It’s fascinating that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man implores Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to convince his brothers, but Abraham said that even bringing back someone from the dead would not be enough if they did not believe the prophets.
And yet, not too long after that, what did Jesus do? He brought a man back from the dead. His name was Lazarus. And it only angered the jewish leadership.
I find that fascinating that no teacher I’ve ever followed has even seriously suggested that this is more than just coincidence. The funny thing is that I stopped believing in coincidences when I became a Christian back in 1981.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
Notice how Peter seems to equate Paul’s writings with “the other Scriptures.” Admittedly, this is only one passage, but interesting.
I’ve seen a lot of that with the ignorant dogma I’ve encountered in the small baptist churches here in rural KY when I bring up the concept of Conditional Immortality (CI) vs Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). The problem is not that they disagree with me. The problem is that no matter how polite I am and try to share scripture, they just get angry and call me names. i.e. they not only can’t support their position - AT ALL - but get really angry and abusive when this realization hits them. They are literally “ignorant and unstable”.
Re: John 3:9
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”
There is not a contradiction here. John is speaking of someone who claims to be a Christian, yet their life demonstrates no change from their former life of sinful living. The phrase, “continue to sin”, means someone who is continually doing what they have always done.
In other words, someone who claims to be a Christian, yet there is never any change in their outward living, their immoral behavior - then, that person is a fraud. John is not teaching sinlessness on the part of believers in Christ. His whole point is that Christians, though we should sin “less” as followers of Jesus, we still do sin. When we do, our sin damages our fellowship with Christ, it damages our daily walk in Jesus, and it potentially damages our witness to unbelievers.
But the promise from Jesus, as John points out is, “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is a wonderful promise to Christians. We all still sin from time to time, but Jesus wants to cleanse us and make us whole in our fellowship with Him.
I’m not a Greek scholar, nor do I pretend to be, but you might consider getting a good Greek-English New Testament and lexicon. Also, I would recommend to you a good online source for Biblical commentary, who can clear up some of these historical, language, and cultural problems in interpreting the Biblical text. I recommend: freebiblecommentary.org
This site was created and maintained by Bob Utley, a former Biblical hermeneutics professor. I would say he’s probably Baptist in his tradition, but he’s very good at giving the various views of problematic passages. Just a suggestion.
Remember, the English translations are just that - translations of ancient writings. We must approach Bible interpretation by first discovering what the text meant to the people it was originally written to.. You did that yourself when you pointed out that the Timothy passage was referring to the Old Testament as scripture. That’s what Bible hermeneutics is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.