Ehrman and Strauss's books

[Ivy]

I was glad to have grown up reading the KJ version. It helped me rack up some vocabulary points on standardized tests back in the day.

Just this week, I used “beget” to win at a couple of wordle-type games

I'm always using some biblical term in Words With Friends 2.

[B.H.]

I always thought it strange that Saul would name his son Ishba'al when Saul, though messing up a lot, never in the Bible worshiped any god but God. I think Saul and Ishba'al if they existed were probably pagan kings retroactively portrayed as God worshippers.

Another thing, David is portrayed as just so loving and kind to Saul despite Saul hunting him down and wanting him dead, with Sauls heir (Jonathon) being his best friend and all, turning against own father for David. It makes me suspect David may have killed Saul or defeated him in battle and to heal or cover up national ills it was later blamed on the Phillistines. Actually David was said to live with the Phillistines and maybe they and his forces defeated Saul and this was left out of the Bible to make David and his line look good

[Ivy]

I always thought it strange that Saul would name his son Ishba'al when Saul, though messing up a lot, never in the Bible worshiped any god but God. I think Saul and Ishba'al if they existed were probably pagan kings retroactively portrayed as God worshippers.

Another thing, David is portrayed as just so loving and kind to Saul despite Saul hunting him down and wanting him dead, with Sauls heir (Jonathon) being his best friend and all, turning against own father for David. It makes me suspect David may have killed Saul or defeated him in battle and to heal or cover up national ills it was later blamed on the Phillistines. Actually David was said to live with the Phillistines and maybe they and his forces defeated Saul and this was left out of the Bible to make David and his line look good

[zeek]

I always thought it strange that Saul would name his son Ishba'al when Saul, though messing up a lot, never in the Bible worshiped any god but God. I think Saul and Ishba'al if they existed were probably pagan kings retroactively portrayed as God worshippers.

Another thing, David is portrayed as just so loving and kind to Saul despite Saul hunting him down and wanting him dead, with Sauls heir (Jonathon) being his best friend and all, turning against own father for David. It makes me suspect David may have killed Saul or defeated him in battle and to heal or cover up national ills it was later blamed on the Phillistines. Actually David was said to live with the Phillistines and maybe they and his forces defeated Saul and this was left out of the Bible to make David and his line look good

Kind of like the "Cherry tree 'I cannot tell a lie' myth" about George Washington??? There is a lot of whitewashing in history to create narratives that are designed to create national pride.

[B.H.]

There are versions of the book of Esther that has chapters in them not in the Bibles we knew growing up. It has God involved in the planning behind the scenes and explains God's role.

It bothers me that the Bible has been edited and changed. You can't prove what is supposed to be there if anything at all was inspired in the first place.

The christians say the other religions of the world were invented by Satan. Other religions and mythologies have an evil bastard in them too. How do we know that Judaism and Christianity is a false religion created by the evil bastard in another religion that happens to be the true religion, or perhaps they are all corrupted.?

[zeek]

There are versions of the book of Esther that has chapters in them not in the Bibles we knew growing up. It has God involved in the planning behind the scenes and explains God's role.

It bothers me that the Bible has been edited and changed. You can't prove what is supposed to be there if anything at all was inspired in the first place.

The christians say the other religions of the world were invented by Satan. Other religions and mythologies have an evil bastard in them too. How do we know that Judaism and Christianity is a false religion created by the evil bastard in another religion that happens to be the true religion, or perhaps they are all corrupted.?

There is no way to really know that B.H.. The philosopher / mathematician Rene Descartes after much consideration concluded that all we can know is "cogito ergo sum". He declared that he had peeled away the layers of the onion of what we consider knowledge discarding everything about which we could be deceived or mistaken, and he arrived at the conclusion that the only thing we can know with certainty is that "I think, there for I am." That is, "that because I have an awareness, I can know I exist". Everything else may or may not be real or true. As for the divine, everyone experiences the divine contingent upon the framework of the situation and culture they exist in. In Asia one is likely to experience the divine in the guise of Buddha or Krishnah; in Europe and the Americas one is more likely to experience the divine in the guise of Jehovah and Jesus. In the middle east the divine comes packaged as Allah. Sadly, humans have spent most of their history destroying each other in the name of their own version of the divine, claiming he, she, it to be the one true god when in reality all the gods are the same divine nature.

[Ivy]

It feels kind of odd not to have a religious label, or box, for my personal beliefs. At the same time, it's very freeing. There doesn't have to be a "box".

[longdistancerunner]

Interesting, I just read Paula Fredriksen's account of the events leading to Jesus's crucifixion in her book "When Christians Were Jews". Basically her contention, as I read and understand her ideas, is Jesus's arrest and "trial" were a pretty simple affair. She feels the priests primarily but also Pilate, were concerned about Jesus's followers starting a riot, for which they would be held accountable by Rome. So the Roman soldiers and temple police arrested Jesus at night, took him to Annas house, and then to Pilate who sentenced him to death. The whole thing was not very complicated, they were just taking care of a potential problem.

[teresa]

Another thing, David is portrayed as just so loving and kind to Saul despite Saul hunting him down and wanting him dead, with Sauls heir (Jonathon) being his best friend and all, turning against own father for David. It makes me suspect David may have killed Saul or defeated him in battle and to heal or cover up national ills it was later blamed on the Phillistines. Actually David was said to live with the Phillistines and maybe they and his forces defeated Saul and this was left out of the Bible to make David and his line look good

That's possible. But I want to address your first sentence. I always thought the idea was not that David was being so loving and kind to Saul -- but rather that David was respecting God as his sovereign. Only God had the right to dethrone the King that God had chosen. I think that is the point the scribe was making, but I could be wrong, of course.

[teresa]

It bothers me that the Bible has been edited and changed. You can't prove what is supposed to be there if anything at all was inspired in the first place.

As I see it, the Bible is a reflection of the ancient Hebrews -- and early Christian church's -- experience of God. When you read the Bible, you are reading their diary of faith, mulled over and interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of their difficult circumstances and further experience of God.

A long time ago I read a book about the Assyrians written by an historian. He said that artifacts indicate that at the time Assyria was (for the first time) losing a battle against their enemies, some Assyrian priests began thinking that their god(s) wanted something more of them than to be feted and bribed. But before the priests could develop this idea of their god's moral expectations, Assyria disappeared as a nation.

The ancient Hebrews were faced with a similar situation. But they were able to develop and retain their experience of God's moral expectations and loyal-love despite their horrific circumstances in defeat. Their diary of faith is a tremendous gift, I think, to those who have followed in their footsteps.