One of the things that struck me when reading [Azar] Nafisi’s account of [The Great] Gatsby trial is how many people treat the Bible as if it is on trial, believing that all they’re been asked for is an up-or-down vote about its value.
Some "Down"-voting Christian bibliobloggers in their call for their up-or-down vote (on people who read and value the Bible differently from the way they do):
If it [scripture] is not given the last word, then its authority has been vacated. Which is fine, for a non-believer.
As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians.
it’s possible to read the Bible on its own terms, assimilate its truth claims, and come out on the other side a reconstructed dispensationalist, a reconstructed liberationist, feminist, etc. But that is a very different existential and intellectual adventure from the one Julia O’Brien advocates, that is, a reading of the Bible premised on a rejection of traditional claims about the Bible. It is also very different from the stance Joel Watts has chosen, that of an apologist who starts out from a fixed position and looks for evidence to support it.
--John Hobbins (again)
I do see this as depravity of the total sort purely and simply because it is a mockery of Christian practice in the same way that an upside down cross on ‘The Satanic Bible’ is a mockery of the Bible.... If it were a true representation of Christianity, I would become an atheist. Fortunately it isn’t, so I needn’t.
--Dr. Jim West
Professors are the most liberal group of people in the world, and it’s professors who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible.
I wish [Robert] Alter was a Christian, I’d love to see what he could do with Romans.
--Charles P Dog