A step by step guide to reading God’s Word, courtesy of Don Camp.
Always read passages in context. This is the only way you can understand what they mean.
Synthesise different passages from a range of contexts so that collectively they say something else.
Read the Bible with all the discernment of a fifth grader.
Always take what is being expressed at face value.
Work out what the original author intended. (Note: ignore the Intentional Fallacy for this purpose.)
Scrutinise what the author intended until he says what you think he should say.
Because the Bible is made up of stories, poems and other literary forms, make sure you recognise the genre you’re dealing with and process it accordingly. (Note: different genres may be synthesised if it suits your purposes.)
Always assume that the improbable, implausible or ludicrous parts of the bible are metaphor, allegory or hyperbole.
Interpret metaphor and allegory in a way that eliminates their obvious ludicrousness.
Do not apply the metaphor/allegory principle to the gospels. The gospels are 100% historical documents, untainted by metaphor and allegory.
Ignore any of Jesus’ commands that are expressed as metaphors.
Dismiss any of Jesus’ more extreme commands – give away all you have, love your enemies, turn the other cheek etc – with the assurance that they’re hyperbole and/or metaphor.
Read the Bible like a first-century believer, even though the Bible didn’t exist in the first century.
On no account concede that Carrier, Ehrman or any other scholar with a book to sell has reached a far more valid conclusion than you have yourself.
To appreciate fully the nuances of New Testament theology, learn Ancient Greek.
Above all, remember that cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal.
(Continues in similar vein for 86 pages.)
Thank you, Don. I appreciate how you’ve collected together the many and varied points you’ve made in your recent voluminous comments, synthesised them and presented them here to equip us to read the Bible the Don Camp way. I can’t help but think that, as a result, we’re all that much closer to a personal encounter with Jesus.
rejectingjesus, 
Some notes on Don’s guide to reading the Bible:
Always read passages in context. This is the only way you can understand what they mean.
It took me some time to realize that by “context” Don means “the Bible’s context as English literature.” Under no circumstances are you to consider historical or cultural context – especially concerning the Hebrew people, nation of Israel, or neighboring nations and people.
On no account concede that Carrier, Ehrman or any other scholar with a book to sell has reached a far more valid conclusion than you have yourself.
The only book that can be trusted to help you in understanding the Bible is Messiah: The Story of Jesus According to Matthew by Don R Camp, available on Amazon.
To appreciate fully the nuances of New Testament theology, learn Ancient Greek.
But don’t believe what “experts in the field” of ancient Greek have to say. Interpretation of ancient Greek is best done by wondering internet preachers who actually understand the Bible.
we’re all that much closer to a personal encounter with Jesus.
Remember, “personal encounter with Jesus” is a metaphor in that no encounter with Jesus will actually take place in real life. But it is also an absolute fact if you consider warm fuzzy feelings, dreams, hallucinations, or random coincidences in your daily life as “personal encounters” with gods.
Thank “God” that we finally have Don Camp to make “God’s word” understandable after 2,000 years! It is such a blessing to live in these times!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t it though.
These notes are certainly going to help me reach all the right conclusions when I read the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Under no circumstances are you to consider historical or cultural context – especially concerning the Hebrew people, nation of Israel, or neighboring nations and people.
I honestly wonder if I am explaining colors to blind men.
Of course, there is historical context. If you read what I say, I refer to historical context often.
Start with Luke 1 and see how often I refer to historical context. I regularly refer to Josephus, for example, for the background of the narrative.
http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/08/luke-chapter-1-luke-begins-by-telling.html
LikeLike
Read everything in context, Kos. At least that is what my professor on linguistics told me years ago. Maybe that has changed with the prevalence of cherry picking sound bites.
Learn ancient Greek? Yes. Of course, many others have great expertise. But I seldom differ with them. In fact the recent mention of historeo was called to my attention by the translators of the NET Bible. I then check it out on Biblehub.com Here’s their word study using primarily ancient Greek sources outside the Bible since Gal. 1:18 is the only use of the word in the Bible.
2477 historéō(from histōr) – properly, learn by inquiring (doing a personal examination); to gain knowledge by “visiting” which conducts “a full interview.”
With so much online related to word studies, knowing the syntax of the language is more important that definitions.
LikeLike
Synthesise different passages from a range of contexts so that collectively they say something else.
The wider context is the whole of God’s word. They do not say something else if they are taken together. They add to one another.
Work out what the original author intended. (Note: ignore the Intentional Fallacy for this purpose.)
How postmodern of you. Did you actually teach literature this way?
Do not apply the metaphor/allegory principle to the gospels. The gospels are 100% historical documents, untainted by metaphor and allegory.
What??? The Gospels are full of metaphors. Jesus spoke in metaphors often. PARABLES ARE METAPHORS.
LikeLike
Synthesise different passages from a range of contexts so that collectively they say something else.
The wider context is the whole of God’s word. They do not say something else if they are taken together. They add to one another.
And there we have it. ‘Collectively they are God’s word.’ Really? Even when none of them explicitly says so? Or when they contradict each other? Of course you’ll make sure they don’t contradict one another because you’ll be highly selective in which verses you consider in the first place. And what’s this ‘wider context’? You’re presupposing there is one.
Synthesising = cherry picking verses + imposing a foregone conclusion on them.
Work out what the original author intended. (Note: ignore the Intentional Fallacy for this purpose.)
How postmodern of you. Did you actually teach literature this way?
Snide. But yes, my students and I considered whether it is ever possible to know what a given author really intended or whether we should let the text speak for itself. I could make a case that the gospel authors ‘intended’ creating allegories about a supernatural starman and you would disagree because you think they ‘intended’ writing history. Deciding what authors from 2000 years ago might have ‘intended’ is fruitless. Yet still you persist.
Do not apply the metaphor/allegory principle to the gospels. The gospels are 100% historical documents, untainted by metaphor and allegory.
What??? The Gospels are full of metaphors. Jesus spoke in metaphors often. PARABLES ARE METAPHORS.
I satirise your frequent assertion that the gospels are history, handed down verbatim by an infallible oral tradition or, in the case of Mark, dictated by Peter, or in the case of Luke, from interviewing eye witnesses. Of course the parables and words of Jesus are metaphorical, as I mention in the following point in the post. And if those, then why not the rest of the cockamamie story?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. Christians over many centuries have considered all the books collected in the Bible to be God’s word. But it is a conclusion we have not come to lightly.
You probably know that. If not you can follow some of the process in Eusebius’ history.
It was not done by legislation but by the collected conviction of many Christians in the early centuries. It was not a one and done process. It was revisited in the 300s in several church councils and off and on through the centuries by such as Martin Luther who considered James an “epistle of straw” and others who have held Revelation at arm’s length because they did not think it said enough about Jesus.
In the last century Bruce Metzger added his considerable work in textual criticism to the question. I’d start with The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. I think it a great book.
I personally think the work of men like Metzger valuable but not definitive. My own opinion is more like that of Christians in the early centuries: the Word of God is recognized by the power it has in our lives. See http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2015/01/marks-gospel-and-inspiration.html
That is probably not satisfactory for you. But it is what has sustained believers for many centuries way back into Old Testament times.
LikeLike
And if [the metaphorical elements like parables], then why not the rest of the cockamamie story?
As my literature students found, identifying metaphor in any work of literature is not a precise art. But you know that. There are, however, some clues.
One, related to the Gospels, is that of confirmation of historicity from other sources, including sources outside the Bible. The attack of Assyria on Israel in the 700s B.C. is reported in the Bible and confirmed by Assyrian texts. If you are interested in Jesus, I recommend Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist?
Another is the genre of the literature in question. We expect metaphor in poetry and parables. We do not expect metaphors in a history book, though the author may use limited metaphors in his or her narrative. (Humans are metaphor using creatures.)
Finally, since in the Bible we find comments on earlier texts by more recent authors who read a piece as either figurative or straight forward reporting. (Paul comments on the Old Testament in places. He regards Abraham as a real person, for example. He does the same regarding Jesus.) In the case of the New Testament documents, we have comments on those by men who lived much closer to the NT time and culture than we, and even though some of their comments we might regard as poetic prose, we also can see that they regarded the history of Jesus to be real history.
LikeLike
Don, you say “The wider context is the whole of God’s word.” — but there are innumerable instances where scriptures do not agree. And people (like you) will generally use the ones that support their particular perspective. If the “wider context” was truly the defining factor, there would not be thousands of denominations in existence today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
None of those places that “do not agree” have to do with theological truth. If you know of some, please tell me. The so-called disagreements have to do with simple historical events like what happened to Judas Iscariot. those are basically observations of individuals where two individuals may have different perspective or memories or information. There are actually a lot of those. But they seldom make any difference in the message.
I do not hold to the doctrine of total infallibility. With the various differences in texts and copies, “infallibility” is a doctrine on paper but not in reality. But I do think that there is consistency and unity and coherence (all terms used of good literature in general) among the books when it comes to theology. But there is still the fact that all the truth on a subject is not revealed in one place. Hense the need to consider the context of the whole of scripture.
Thousands of denominations? Do you know that many of those are really ethnic differences rather than theological differences? Like Swedish Baptists and German Baptists. Or African Methodist Episcopal and United Methodists.
LikeLike
The thing is, Don, -IF- the bible is TRULY the Word of God (you know, that Supreme Bring that you worship), there should be NO “theological differences.” And you know this as well as I do.
Oh … and your “ethnic differences” is such a weak argument, I refuse to even address it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So tell me what you think is a theological difference.
LikeLike
‘None of those places that “do not agree” have to do with theological truth. If you know of some, please tell me.’
Okay. Here’s a couple:
Romans 7:6 – …we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Luke 16:17 – But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
Acys 9:26-28 – Barnabas took (Paul), brought him to the apostles… and he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.
Galatians 1 – Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia… the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Good article about why this is theologically significant on Debunking Christianity. Though of course you’ve been banned there.)
There are, as Nan says, innumerable theological disagreements within the bible, not least between the Old and New Testaments.
You know this, Don, so having dismissed, as is your way, other contradictions, you disingenuously claim there are no theological differences either. We’ve already discussed this at length but here you are making the same bluff again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Acts 9:26-28 and Galatians 1 are not theological differences. They are two different reports of what happened. And they were reports made in such a way as to make the point of the author.
Rom. 7:6. Better go on one more verse. Paul says the Law still has a place. It brings the knowledge of sin. It is not abolished.
Then you might read the fuller account of what Jesus said about the Law in Matt. 5:17-18.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.
Paul elaborates: Romans 7:7 “I would not have known sin except through the law.”
So, in fact, the Law will be done away when all is fulfilled – according to Jesus. But what did he mean? The context of the whole of scripture says that the law will be done away with as far as a believer is concerned when the law is written on his heart. Heb. 8:9-11.
Also Romans 8:4
The law is made for the lawless. Its work is complete when the lawless one recognizes his sin, repents, and is filled with the Spirit who takes over the role of the Law and guides the believer into righteousness.
That is the whole of scripture.
LikeLike
I might’ve done all those things but I was not, unlike you, attempting to synchronise (harmonise away) disparate verses. You asked for examples that were not in agreement and you got them.
The Acts and Galatians example is relevant in that, if Acts is correct, Paul would surely have learnt much about Jesus from Cephas and the rest, yet in Galatians he flatly denies doing anything of the sort. He insists there that he never met the supposed eye-witnesses but that everything he knew of Jesus came instead from his own revelations/hallucinations
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul doesn’t actually say he learned everything about Jesus by revelation (Gal. 1:11-12). That would be totally unreasonable since he already knew a lot from the people he persecuted. But if you follow Paul discussion of the gospel he received through his other letters (gasp, choke) you’ll find that he is talking about that special truth about the gospel being for the Gentiles as well.
That is the problem of takin g only one small verse out of context and making it say what you want it to say.
But read on. Gal. 1:18. (Forgive me for referring to the Greek here. “18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days.”
Often “get information is often translated “visit”. But the word is ἱστορῆσαι or historeo. According to Biblehub and the lexicons histereo means
historéō (from histōr) – properly, learn by inquiring (doing a personal examination); to gain knowledge by “visiting” which conducts “a full interview.”
In other words, Paul visited with Peter to get the history of Jesus, and who better to get that story? Peter was with Jesus for the entire 3 plus years.
You really do need to get your ideas from a reading of the Bible.
LikeLike
Neat ‘synthesising’ there, Don.
Three points:
1. How do you know what Paul and Cephas discussed? Paul doesn’t say what he enquired about, much less that it was ‘the history of Jesus’. He could just as easily have been asking about Cephas’ own hallucinations/revelations.
2. If Paul did learn so much about ‘the history of Jesus’ from Cephas, why does he insist that ‘the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.’ I mean you’d think he’d know, wouldn’t you. Of course he had no idea that some 2000 years later the great latter day apostle, Don Camp, would come along knowing better.
3. Likewise, why if he learnt so much from Cephas, does he make no use of it in any of his subsequent letters? See here: https://rejectingjesus.com/2022/10/12/stories-about-jesus/
You would do well getting your ideas from somewhere other than the Bible. All this synthesising is affecting your brain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you know what Paul and Cephas discussed?
Don: Fifteen days and they didn’t talk about Jesus? Oh, well, I suppose the weather was of more interest.
You know perfectly well this isn’t what I said. I said they were as likely to have discussed their respective visions as Cephas being quizzed on ‘the history of Jesus.’ At least argue honestly.
why does he insist that ‘the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin,
Don: Ephesians. 3:1-7. 3 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles 2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that by revelation the mystery was made known to me, as I wrote before briefly. 4 When reading this, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ … 6 namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. 7 I became a servant of this gospel
Great quote from a letter scholars do not think was written by Paul.
Even so, Paul’s gospel was not just that the Gentiles should be preached to. You think that would be the extent of his gospel? Of course not, it had to have content; you know, all that mumbo jumbo he recounts in his genuine letters.
why if he learnt so much from Cephas, does he make no use of it in any of his subsequent letters?
Don: He does make reference, but in every case the foundational truth of the gospel has already been made known either by Paul or those who first preached the gospel to them. It would be redundant and expensive to write again those things. Paul was intent upon building on them not repeating them.
Piffle. This is the clichéd Christian response to why Paul knows nothing about ‘the history of Jesus’. I like that you’ve added additional excuses about the cost of ink and paper (which never stops Paul rattling on at length about everything else.) How do you know what Paul’s ‘intent’ was anyway? If only he’d had you by his side when he was making up all this stuff about his mythical Christ. I’m sure he’d have made a much better job of it if he had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Paul and Cephas were busy with the chariot races at the Hippodrome. Seriously, fifteen days to talk about the passion of their lives might have included Cephas’s memories of Jesus.
I seriously would have liked to have been by his side.
Like Barnabas and Silas and others in Antioch. Paul had many people who had memories of Jesus dating back to before Paul became a follower of Jesus. Think of Ananias of Damascus. Do you somehow think they were all busy with the latest chariot races?
The gospel was being broadly preached before Paul got into the game.
LikeLike
If only they had gone to the races. We might’ve been spared this ridiculous religion (aren’t they all?) with its reanimated corpses, supernatural demi-gods and visions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Goyo,
“So tell me what you think is a theological difference”
Well, the one below is a theological difference.
In Acts 2:38, Peter instructs baptism in the name of Jesus Christ “for the remission of sins.”
But since I know a number of Church of Christ folk, I know that it is not one that for them divides believers in Jesus. It is very important for them, but they still think that I, a Baptist, am a true believer. Of course, I have been baptized. I just don’t think baptism is necessary for salvation; it follows salvation rather than is the act of faith that results in salvation. In the end it is six of one and a half dozen of the other.
But as for ethnicity or nationality, as a Baptist I know that the thing that caused the division between Southern Baptists and my brand of Baptist was the Civil War. It is not theological.
LikeLike
Don:
“Thousands of denominations? Do you know that many of those are really ethnic differences rather than theological differences?”
Don:
“So tell me what you think is a theological difference”
In Acts 2:38, Peter instructs baptism in the name of Jesus Christ “for the remission of sins.”
This one verse is used by the Church of Christ denomination to “prove” that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Southern baptists reject this interpretation.
There is your theological difference just between those two denominations.
And don’t even get started on the theological differences between Protestant
belief and Roman Catholic belief.
It’s NOT ethnicity!
You’re wrong again.
LikeLike
Don:
“ But since I know a number of Church of Christ folk, I know that it is not one that for them divides believers in Jesus.”
So, because you know a few liberal folks in your hometown, that goes for the entire denomination?
Bullshit!
If you’re not a member of the “church of Christ” denomination, and have not been baptized for the remission of sins, you are not a xtian!
That’s why the Baptists joke about them thinking they’re the only ones that’ll be in heaven.
I’ve heard this since I was young, because there was a church of Christ church across the street from our Baptist church.
Try preaching your liberal theology to them…again, this is a THEOLOGICAL difference that you insist doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Inside Don’s little bubble there’s no dissent, only peace and love and harmony.
Meanwhile in the real world theological and doctrinal differences abound, some of them so severe they’ve led in the past to Christians killing Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person