10 thoughts on “Reserve Reading #5 – OT Narrative”
At first, I wasn’t sure I’d have much of a question.. But while reading this chapter I remembered a conversation that John David Paff and I had on Thursday. Or Friday. This chapter seemed to hit hard on the issues of taking the Bible in the right way. It warned against decontextualizing and selectivity and false appropriation… Valid points, yes. But it seems like such a task to read the Bible–to not take certain things too literally–to apply things to yourself only in the right situation… When the Bible becomes a textbook in need of much judgement and discretion, what can you do?
It says that the Hebrews built their narrative around scenes rather than around characters….. why is that?
On page 99 it talks about finding things in the Bible that are implicit, things that the narrator embeds into Scripture that you might miss at first reading of the book. I dont understand how to locate these things, or why its important to try to locate these things and figure out what they mean. So I guess kinda like what Olivia said, this along with a lot of other stuff in the chapter I dont really get why we should be looking for them, or how were even supposed to find these things in the Bible.
What are good literary cues (besides similes and metaphors) that tell the reader not to view the text as being completely literal?
I’ve had discussions in several Bible classes (including yours) about Biblical Narrative. One big thing that keeps coming up is that Narratives tell what happenned, not what’s right or wrong, or what should have happenned. Even if that isn’t the main purpose of the narrative, should we still be looking for examples to follow or not to follow in these accounts?
How did the particular stories of the old testiment come to be the narratives that make up the medanarrative? For example Ruth seems like a somewhat obscure character. Why was her story canonized into scripture?
I still don’t get how we are suppose to know if we are suppose to follow a specific example if it is just a narrative…if it basically just a recount of what happened and not have “rule to follow” then do we just not read it to see what rules/people/attitude we need to follow?
On Page 99, the author states “Implicit teaching is that which is clearly present in the story but not stated in so many words” How are we, as chritians, able to distinguish these implicit teachings?” I feel like it is very easy to blur what we are reading when we are “reading between the lines” which is necessary for understanding the Bible. This “reading between the lines” is how we interpret the Bible because we don’t know the mind of God, so we have to read into scriptures a little more and pull from them … right????
correct me if i am wrong but i thought that the old testament was meant for them then. and the old testament is our historical history? i don’t understand that
At first, I wasn’t sure I’d have much of a question.. But while reading this chapter I remembered a conversation that John David Paff and I had on Thursday. Or Friday. This chapter seemed to hit hard on the issues of taking the Bible in the right way. It warned against decontextualizing and selectivity and false appropriation… Valid points, yes. But it seems like such a task to read the Bible–to not take certain things too literally–to apply things to yourself only in the right situation… When the Bible becomes a textbook in need of much judgement and discretion, what can you do?
It says that the Hebrews built their narrative around scenes rather than around characters….. why is that?
On page 99 it talks about finding things in the Bible that are implicit, things that the narrator embeds into Scripture that you might miss at first reading of the book. I dont understand how to locate these things, or why its important to try to locate these things and figure out what they mean. So I guess kinda like what Olivia said, this along with a lot of other stuff in the chapter I dont really get why we should be looking for them, or how were even supposed to find these things in the Bible.
What are good literary cues (besides similes and metaphors) that tell the reader not to view the text as being completely literal?
I’ve had discussions in several Bible classes (including yours) about Biblical Narrative. One big thing that keeps coming up is that Narratives tell what happenned, not what’s right or wrong, or what should have happenned. Even if that isn’t the main purpose of the narrative, should we still be looking for examples to follow or not to follow in these accounts?
How did the particular stories of the old testiment come to be the narratives that make up the medanarrative? For example Ruth seems like a somewhat obscure character. Why was her story canonized into scripture?
I still don’t get how we are suppose to know if we are suppose to follow a specific example if it is just a narrative…if it basically just a recount of what happened and not have “rule to follow” then do we just not read it to see what rules/people/attitude we need to follow?
On Page 99, the author states “Implicit teaching is that which is clearly present in the story but not stated in so many words” How are we, as chritians, able to distinguish these implicit teachings?” I feel like it is very easy to blur what we are reading when we are “reading between the lines” which is necessary for understanding the Bible. This “reading between the lines” is how we interpret the Bible because we don’t know the mind of God, so we have to read into scriptures a little more and pull from them … right????
correct me if i am wrong but i thought that the old testament was meant for them then. and the old testament is our historical history? i don’t understand that