Interesting article

[NewJohn]

Here is a interesting article;
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/rise-fall...mothy-beal

[Lizzy F.]

These are some bits that I found the most interesting:

Quote:The gulf between what readers expect to find in the Bible and what they are actually given produces a kind of paralysis, Beal explains. “For many Christians, this experience of feeling flummoxed by the Bible … [produces] not only frustration but also guilt for doubting the Bible’s integrity.” The Bible-publishing industry feeds on this anxiety, he argues, by endlessly repackaging the Biblical text in ever more watered-down and over-explained forms. Many readers, and certainly non-Christian ones, will probably be unfamiliar with the world of Christian “Biblezines,” in which biblical texts are interspersed with magazine-style articles and quizzes: “There are Biblezines for just about everyone. Becoming targets college-age and young professional women. Explore is for preteen boys, and Refuel is for teenage boys. Blossom is for preteen girls, and Revolve is for teenage girls.”

I sort of agree with this. It would be a problem if these specialized Bibles were the primary Bible being studied, but it's easily remedied by having a generic study Bible too. So it's not really that big of a deal.

Quote:as Beal puts it, Christians need to read more like Jews:

.....

Naturally, the kind of interpretation Beal espouses is not the kind the rabbis had in mind. Talmudic interpretation is based on the premise that, since the Torah is God’s word, every meaning that can be found in it is divine. That is how a whole legal system, and a whole philosophical system, and a whole mystical system, could be deduced from the biblical text. Beal’s reading of the Bible depends, conversely, on the premise that the Bible is not divine writ, but rather a precious human inheritance, which can be used to support and enhance contemporary moral intuitions.

So, in summary, Beal wants Christians to accept that any interpretation is correct, but that since the text isn't binding the interpretations should not be respected as law/doctrines, just as ideas that support "moral intuitions".

I found this confusing, but I peaked at the book through Amazon and he says the idea of the Bible being a guidebook came from 19th century New Puritanic Biblicism and that "Biblical Inerrancy" came from early Fundamentalism. I don't know if this is true or not.