You'd think that "The Good Book" wouldn't have much bad stuff in it. But nearly half (30/66) of the Bible's books have nothing good in them, at least as far as I can see. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible includes some of the worst stuff in all literature, with 31 books that have not a single piece of useful moral (or any other kind of) advice.
Here's my list of the Bible's bad books: Bad Books of the Bible
(Let me know if you can find something good in them. If you can convince me, I'll add the verses to the good stuff and remove the book from the bad book list.)
Posts
11 comments:
It's interesting to note that most of the bad books mentioned are from the Old Testament. But, yes, I see your point; absolutely riddled with xenophobia, threats and propaganda.
Some of the mythology mentioned (for example, Ezekiel and Isiah on seeing celestial beings and God himself) are interesting.
There's very strong nationalist themes too, which border on being militant.
For maintaining social order, it might have been good more than 20 centuries ago, but it's not really compatible with today's values.
As I might have said in my post today (and if I didn't, I was thinking it) what is "good" to a believer is different to an unbeliever. For instance, most believers in the Bible are highly inspired by the words of the men in Daniel 3:16-18 as a show of great faith.
Also, your idea of what is "good" may be colored by other issues you have not stated. Why not qualify Revelation 21:4 as "good"? It looks good to me, but it may be that you don't like the larger context in which the statement is made.
A believer no doubt can find something good in every book of the Bible (possibly Judges being an exception), but it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Can the challenge be worded more precisely?
"what is "good" to a believer is different to an unbeliever."
That's true, Brucker. But Revelation 21:4 is a false promise and cruel lie if there is no life after death. So I don't consider it good. (I should probably mark it somehow, but I'm not sure what category to put it in.)
But I think we can both agree that Leviticus 19:18 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 are good. We should love others and seek the truth.
That's the type of thing I am looking for in the "good stuff." Ideas that any decent person, regardless of his or her belief system, would recognize as good.
Yes, as I think I was trying to imply in both those cases, those are things that are good only if what they stand for is true. If not, one becomes foolishness, the other becomes a "cruel lie".
But still, I think there is so much that depends on a personal point of view here. Case in point, as I mentioned in my post the other day, there are people who believe ordering others to "not commit adultery" is unfairly limiting of our personal freedoms. You do make the choice to mark it as "good" nonetheless.
There's a lot of grey area. If not committing adultery is a good thing, then perhaps it's a good thing that Jacob didn't simply divorce Leah when he realized he'd been tricked into marrying her.
Isn't just about the entire Song of Solomon good because it's a love letter from a man to his wife? Even though an unbeliever may scoff at Daniel's devotion to his (supposedly false) religion, I've always thought it admirable that Daniel serves his Babylonian and Persian masters faithfully even though he doesn't like their beliefs.
In 2Sam. 9, one of David's first acts after becoming King of Israel is to see to it that the family of deposed King Saul is taken care of, especially Saul's crippled grandson, Mephibosheth.
I don't think I buy your statement about Ruth. It is a very nice story about a man who saves two widows from a life of poverty. Ruth decides to not abandon her mother-in-law (1:16), the story illustrates the Israelite custom of leaving gleanings which you called good in Leviticus (2:2), we see Boaz going above and beyond the call in this matter ((2:15), what you seem to mark as bad in verse 4:11 is a matter of custom not that he buys her like a slave, but that he pays off her family's debt as is required by Jewish law before she marry him.
One more thing that I think a non-believer especially would find good is the letter to the Laodiceans in the book of Revelation, which many fundamentalist Biblical scholars have interpreted as a prophetic chewing out of the modern-era churches, telling them that they are all a bunch of hypocrites and care more about having material goods than having Jesus in their lives.
Nothing good in the Song of Solomon? What! Isn't that the book about sex?
Just realize that the Bible in its current form was made fairly long ago by a comission from king james. (i think). They decided what should be put in and what shouldn't, especially with regards to the new testament.
The site is put together very nicely--kudos. I am a Catholic (I know) and I find that a lot of what you use to support why Christianity is "wrong" is...wrong. Part of this is because a lot of your quotes seem to come out a King James based or more modern based/English based text. A lot of ideas, concepts and phrases are misinterpreted when reading these. The King James version is so heavily edited, I find it blashpemous and wrong. Mind you I am both Irish and Catholic (again, I know) but the King James bible is just wrong. However, I whole-heartidly agree with you on many things. I find it funny how so many Christians hate all other people. When we are told to "love our brothers," that means all people. Love is blind to religion, race, nationality and in many cases even gender. I agree Christians always need to be ready to answer questions about their faith. I learned some latin and Hebrew (from a Jew) just so I could read a more original and truthful bible, it also helped me confirm my faith as a Catholic. Any referrence to dying should be thought of as good because that is when you leave your Earthly body to enter into God's Kingdom.
Well, what version do you want him to use? Which is the one that Christians agree is the best? They don't.
Most modern versions are copyrighted and their terms of use prevent them from appearing on sites like the SAB. The KJV, though it has issues (I agree with you, and don't like it myself) is entirely in the public domain.
you link to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html, which contains some "bad" passages from Genesis 22. right after 22.10, an angel appears to Abraham and tells him NOT to kill his son. this should go on the "good" list.
The problem with this challenge, as stated previously, is that everyone's concept of "good" is different. "Good" is quite subjective.
But just for fun, here are some good things in a few of the books you have on the "Bad List":
Genesis 50:20 says, (my paraphrase) that what Joseph's brothers intended for evil (bad), God used for good, to save the lives of lots of people.
That even has the word good in it. Does saving thousands of people from famine qualify as good?
1 Samuel 26 tells the story of David sparing Saul's life, even though Saul was trying to kill him! Saul repents (at least for a short time) and stops pursuing David and they basically "make up". Good?
Zephaniah 3:17 says that God will rejoice over his people with songs of joy. That may not sound good to an unbeliever but how can you call it bad?
I'm sure I could find more but those are just a few quick ones that came to mind.
Cheers,
Cody
I suppose it depends on how you define "Good." I mean, on the surface, Hamlet is a "Bad Book" in that it's got lots of murder, ilicit sex, conspiracy, and violence in it, and no real moral. Also, the story never happened.
So, all things being equal, it's bad, and it's definitely too long by half. However, all things are not equal, and things do not have to be literally true to have value. Just because the endless and boring geneologies in Numbers have no value to us doesn't mean they weren't important to the ancient Jews, and it seems a bit racist to me to declare that since something is useless to contemporary white (?) Americans, it must therefore always have been valueless.
Likewise, the extensive legal codes in Deuteronomy and Leviticus are boring and have no real value to us, but they were written as an administrative code for a priestly caste that no longer exists. So obviously they had value to them.
The historical books were written by and for a disposessed people who were desparately trying to hold on to their national identity while they were in captivity in a foreign land. Again, not strictly relevant to life today, I'll grant you, but it's interesting from a historical perspective, and saying "It's a bad book" is kinda' like saying "Black Americans shouldn't even pretend to have any interest in all that African mumbo-jumbo, it's all useless." Again, you're leaning towards racism here.
Post a Comment