Belated response to Evo :)..sorry.. "No..I'm not trying to convince myself that God exists" I already know that, I'm jussssst trying to focus on 'how to interpret texts'.. which is a MOST needed lesson among many of us.. Pericles and CJ included ..bright as they appear to be.

I won't go into "Christ" in this post, but just want to raise a question for anyone interested to 'ponder'.

"The beginning" (of the Gospel..of...) in Mark 1:1... refers to... what? (specifically)

and if anyone thinks this is a trick question...nope.. its there in front of you, and is so easily missed.. like that 'how many f's in the following sentence' kind of illusion.
(Nothing to do with Genesis either nor the fact that it comes 'at' the beginning of what Mark has written) NO more hints :)

The self-congratulatory Boaz-David has set himself up as OLO's religious-instruction teacher. How very humble, how very demure, how very typical of Boaz, a man whose ego is only exceeded by his self delusion.

IamJoseph has succinctly illustrated other ways in which to interpret biblical texts; I hope Boaz realises that many other Christians take much of his interpretations with a grain (pillar?) of salt.

As an intelligent, independent woman, I find Boaz's interpretation vis-a-vis women's supposedly divinely-instructed subservience to men as highly offensive as well completely stupid. What if Goodwife is married to Dumbhusband? Who should take instruction from whom?

Boaz, not all Christians agree with you, and for those who have difficulty with his misogynistic version of the bible, please read:

"Even though the Scriptures never portray women as secondary to men, our male-dominated-religious-system still promotes a warped view of female inferiority. Women are tired of this, and as a man, so am I, because such demeaning attitudes don't reflect God's heart.

Jesus challenged gender prejudice at its core when He directed so much of His ministry toward women. In a Middle Eastern culture that considered women mere property, He healed women, disciplined them and commissioned them to minister. Yet today we spend much of our energy denying them opportunities and using the Bible to defend our prohibitions."

The above extracted from:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204105114/http://godswordtowomen.org/Lee_Grady.htm

Which comprehensively lists 10-LIES-THE-CHURCH-TELLS-WOMEN

Such-as:

LIE #6. A WOMAN SHOULD VIEW HER HUSBAND AS THE "PRIEST OF THE HOME."
Search your concordance. Scripture never describes men as "priests of the home." This man-made concept was popularized in evangelical churches in the last century. We have one priest, Jesus Christ, whose blood atoned for our sins. It is a mockery of the gospel to suggest that any human being needs an additional priest apart from the Son of God.

The Bible says all believers are priests (see 1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6); there is no gender restriction. Husbands function as priests when they pray for their families or when they minister the Word of God to them, and wives also function in this role."

"The POINT.....I'm laboring is.. 'WHAT DOES the 'text' SAY and what does it mean in everyday normal meanings of those words." - Boaz

You mean a moral lesson not dependent on religion, like the words of the 1950/60s psychologist, Carl Rogers, that "we should have uncondition positive regard" for our feelow humans? You mean how do we interpret morality independent of any notion of the religious?

For one meanings will change over time. Translated, as mentiones onother post, the word faith meant "steadfastness" to Moses or people of his time [Catholic Enclyclopaedia], in Jesus' time "obedience and truth", from c. 1392, odedience and truth WITH conviction.

Another issue is one of authority; or, whose authority; do you belief the astrophyscist & geologist or the minister about the age of the Earth? Do yo belief the Historian, who tells you Herod was dead, when Jesus was born, or believe the priest, who says Herod was alive at the time?

Dear Fractelle and Oliver.

Fractelle.. believe it or not..I'm quite comfortable with your information. I might not view it as entirely Biblical (when correctly interpreted:)..but I rejoice that you are sussing out issues like this, and forming opinions on them. When you see how 'As Christ loved the Church' works between a man and woman in marriage, then I think your concerns over misogyny will dissappear.

I began this thread for an important reason.. "Understanding how to interpret" (any) document. Clearly there is some muddleheadedness out there.

We can see quickly if we have it, by testing our understanding of just 'one' verse from Scripture.. "Mark 1:1" as in my previous post.

I recall you asked me to read outside the loop once.. and I did, but when I responded..you ignored me...

Why not (in the interests of actual debate) look at the verse I mentioned..and advance an opinion on what it means? (Objectively..simply as a piece of written text)

Oly.. you went off into the scrub there.. way off the track.. 'come back' :) to Mark 1:1 please.

" recall you asked me to read outside the loop once.. and I did, but when I responded..you ignored me..." - Boaz

If me, I mised it. Please supply link to your response. Thanks.

Does one need to consider altrenatives to Jesus as to whom might be God? Christianity is only a fraction of the literature.

Here, I do appreciate the conflict with Moses and the Commandants, yet Moses needed to keep his peolpe on a nomadic footing [tribal god] and not have them settle, yet, [calf god]. Perhaps Moses did not want his peole to "jump the gun' with regards to The Promised Land, wherein, a settled farming gourp with a calf god would seem apt

Boaz

Were I to ever select a teacher of theology, it would not be a patronising egotist such as yourself.

Your innumerable postings to OLO filled with your adolescent lack of control over your multiplicity of biblical quotes, indicate a far too narrow intellect and vision that is required to interpret any tome of ancient or even contemporary endeavour. You can't even follow basic biology or astronomy. Did you miss the introduction to my last post? No-one has appointed you as OLO's theological interpreter. I notice in your heading you claim to interpret secular texts as well! How? You cannot even define the difference between secularism and atheism.

And you have to gall to state things like, "but I rejoice that you are sussing out issues like this", you know nothing about me, my back ground, my education, nor my literary interests AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO REJOICE in what you see as my questioning.

You have not addressed a SINGLE point I raised in my last post.

You expect ME to read texts YOU have selected for me.

I can and have read the both the old and new testaments, but can you say the same about Darwin's "Origin of the Species"? Or even (a little more simple for the likes of you) David Attenborough's "Life on Earth"?

But why do I bother?

Arguing with a narcissist is like wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while I realise that the pig is simply enjoying it.