Are some Laws in the Bible Immoral? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2011, 11:46 AM

In this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26814&postcount=13) from another thread, Moses claimed to base his morality on some "simple teachings from God's word" ...

I believe the NT church, in Paul's day, would have viewed these things the same way...These are not, imo, traditions or the 'ministry of condemnation'-- they are simple teachings from God's word concerning morality (regarding 'engagement' 'marriage' and 'divorce' 'adultery)

But, I could be wrong--- willing to learn otherwise. Maybe my 'old fashioned' views on 'betrothal and ''union''' are not biblical.

Here is how I responded:

Hey there Moses,

If we are going to establish laws for Christians based on the Law of Moses as the eternal "Word of God" then let's go all the way!

Deut 22:23 A man who rapes a betrothed virgin would be killed.
Deut 22:28 A man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin would be fined fifty shekels.

The implications are perfectly clear. The penalty is based on who OWNS the woman! She is the property of either her father or her husband. As the property of her father, her value is based on how much cash he could have realized by her sale (dowry) and since the rapist ruined the value of his property, he must pay some money and then take the used, worthless, unsellable female off her father's hands. It's just an ancient version of "You broke it, you bought it."

These laws should horrify anyone with a sane mind and a compassionate heart. Any Israelite who wanted a sex-slave only had to go and RAPE the woman of his desire, pay fifty shekels to her father, and then he got to keep her for life. This is the LAW OF GOD??? Think about this! A grotesque monster rapes your sister, pays your dad fifty shekels, and your sister is then condemned to a lifetime of sex and maid service to her rapist??? You want this to be the "law" for Christians? :eek:

Unfortunately, my response killed the conversation and Moses has not posted anything on this forum since then. I can understand how disturbing it might be to some folks, but I think it is very important for "Bible believers" to deal with this issue.

I believe the laws that treat women as the property of men are indeed "moral abominations" absolutely unworthy of God. I would like to know what others think about this.

Also, this thread is a good place to discuss other passages that are morally problematic, such as the joy of bashing baby heads against the rocks (Psalm 137:9).

I am interested in reviewing the attempts to answer these questions made by Christian apologists. The answers are usually transparently fallacious and often hilariously self-contradictory. For example, Hank Hanegraaff tries to justify (http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-canaanites-how-could-a-just-god-command-his-people-to-destroy-an-entire-nation-) God's command to kill all of the men, women and children of the Canaanites by characterizing them as "degenerates" ---

Some find it hard to understand why God would use Israel as his instrument to annihilate an entire race of people like the Canaanites. Why did he? The answer is simply this. The nations which Israel destroyed had degenerated dramatically. In fact, archaeologists have given us a glimpse of how evil the inhabitants of Palestine had actually become. They were involved in bestiality, incest, molestation, homosexuality, prostitution — and if that’s not enough, they even sacrificed their children to idols. In fact, the entire land had become so contaminated that God, who truly sees the big picture, decided for the good of mankind that they had to be destroyed.

Say what? Hank "explained" that God's command to kill the Canaanite children was justified because the "degenerate" Canaanites had been killing the Canaanite children! :lmbo:

Such ludicrous and incoherent "explanations" are all too common in fundamentalist Christianity. I think we need to talk about it. I know I do anyway.

Richard

Rose

01-23-2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Hank Hanegraaff
Some find it hard to understand why God would use Israel as his instrument to annihilate an entire race of people like the Canaanites. Why did he? The answer is simply this. The nations which Israel destroyed had degenerated dramatically. In fact, archaeologists have given us a glimpse of how evil the inhabitants of Palestine had actually become. They were involved in bestiality, incest, molestation, homosexuality, prostitution — and if that’s not enough, they even sacrificed their children to idols. In fact, the entire land had become so contaminated that God, who truly sees the big picture, decided for the good of mankind that they had to be destroyed.I am interested in reviewing the attempts to answer these questions made by Christian apologists. The answers are usually transparently fallacious and often hilariously self-contradictory. For example, Hank Hanegraaff tries to justify (http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-canaanites-how-could-a-just-god-command-his-people-to-destroy-an-entire-nation-) God's command to kill all of the men, women and children of the Canaanites by characterizing them as "degenerates" ---

Say what? Hank "explained" that God's command to kill the Canaanite children was justified because the "degenerate" Canaanites had been killing the Canaanite children! :lmbo:

Such ludicrous and incoherent "explanations" are all too common in fundamentalist Christianity. I think we need to talk about it. I know I do anyway.

Richard

Since we're on the subject of abominable Bible verses....here's part of my list:

1 Samuel 15:3 "Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses."

Exodus 22:18 "You shall not let a sorceress live."
Psalm 137:9 "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."
Judges 19:25-28 "When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Come, let us go'; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an ass and started out again for home."
Judges 11:30-1, 34-5 "Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. 'If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,' he said, 'whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the Lord. I shall offer him up as a holocaust.' ... When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, 'Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract'."
1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."
Duet.22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Gen.38:24-26 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
Ezek.9:4-6 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
Num.31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Gen.6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
1Tim.2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Ephesians 5:22 "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord."

The main reason I call these verses abominable is because their inclusion in the Bible has given many people license to commit atrocious acts in the name of God.

Take for example the #13 and #14....these two verses have cause women centuries of needless pain and suffering at the hands of men who called themselves Christians.

The sad thing is that the Bible is full of such verses that can be easily twisted and manipulated by the minds of men.

Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-23-2011, 04:24 PM

In this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26814&postcount=13) from another thread, Moses claimed to base his morality on some "simple teachings from God's word" ...
-----------
Such ludicrous and incoherent "explanations" are all too common in fundamentalist Christianity. I think we need to talk about it. I know I do anyway.

Richard

Not much time for an in depth response.
But, I think that the book of Deut could lend some insight.
The law of Deut was due to their uncircumcised hearts and due to their desiring to become a nation like the Egyptians. The law was inferior and I believe God used their desires to be a superior people to string them along to accomplish his goals, plan and purposes. They were no different than any other nation except that the law, temple service and the times and seasons were to confirm the true SON OF GOD through fullfilment of the types. They also were privaledged to witness the signs and miracles of the prophets.

It's either in psalms or chronicles where it says that the descendants of the Patriarchs took retribution out on the nations that did not hear Abraham-Jacobs preaching of righteousness. Not that the Israelites were any better. Some in the nation understood the promise of the seed of Eve and the everlasting covenant of Mercy and held faith in a Good, Loving God.

AS for the references in the NT, I wonder if there is some intercovenantal time application to them. For example, we dont' practice slavery any more, but some churches teach that this refers to an employee/employer relationship. Yet in Revelation, we are given the title of Priest and Kings.

The reference about being saved through childbirth also has puzzled me from time to time. I wonder if it isnt' referring to the birth of the savior and being saved through Mary's virgin childbirth. The woman who was decieved is spiritually saved in the same way as the man (through faith in Christ) but since it is the woman who did the childbearing; she possibly identifies with Mary and the willingness to bear the 'seed' of Eve. There is no shame for either sex who place faith in the Person of Christ. The woman isn't 'saved' by her willingness to bear children in magnified labor any more than a man is saved by his willingness and pride in recieving the curse of growing things by the sweat of his brow.

I think Abel possibly looked forward in faith while Cain possibly accepted the punishment and thought his work and acceptance of the curse would be pleasing to God. Although we sweat in work and labor in childbirth, there is no justification or righteousness through either. There should be joy and freedom in serving God (and ourselves) in our occupation, or trade.

But alas, if under 'law' there is tempered joy / freedom.

Anyhow; if the poster named 'moses' thinks or believes that the law of moses contained higher principles, he should read the book of Deuteronomy. If the law imparted life, there would have been no need for a new prophet, New Words, NEW LIFE, and a New Beginning/New Garden. There were likely some dietary laws and usage of herbs and plants for medicine; and perhaps some other basic sanitary principles which were positive, but otherwise, most of it had stricktly religious symbolism. Thus, like Cain and Abel, there is no justification in attemting to keep any portion of the law other than the first 2 commandments which are able to be done because of a circumcised heart laid bare open to one's Creator/Lover.

The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey.

In many of the times the pharisees tried to trick Jesus, he confounded them. He healed on the Sabbath, picked his meal on the sabbath. did not stone the woman caught in adultery, talked to the samaritai woman who had 7 husbands AND revealed himself first to her as Messiah.... etc etc.. When asked which laws permitted divorce of a wife, he taught them that the life which God has joined together is not to be put asunder. They were asking a negative question and got a positive answer.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2011, 05:11 PM

Anyhow; if the poster named 'moses' thinks or believes that the law of moses contained higher principles, he should read the book of Deuteronomy. If the law imparted life, there would have been no need for a new prophet. There were likely some dietary laws and usage of herbs and plants for medicine; and perhaps some other basic sanitary principles which were positive, but otherwise, most of it had stricktly religious symbolism. Thus, like Cain and Abel, there is no justification in attemting to keep any portion of the law other than the first 2 commandments which are able to be kept because of a circumcised heart laid bare open to one's Creator/Lover.

The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey.

Hey there Deut,

Very interesting answer! But I think there is a problem. Paul said that the Law was "holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7:12) even in the context of explaining how it could not impart life. Furthermore, God repeatedly said the Law would give wisdom and understanding (Deut 4:6, Ps 19:7). How then can we dismiss it as void of "higher principles"? And Paul spoke of the first century Jewish view, which remains to this day, that the law was the very "form of knowledge and truth" (Rom 2:20). It seems impossible to believe that an omniscient God would give anything less than a perfect law to his people.

Now it is curious that you bring up the issue of our incapability of keeping the law. I agree that no one is perfect, but this is not the issue at hand. And worse - the moral reprobates could easily have kept the law in Deut 22 which said that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin only had to pay 50 shekels and then he got to keep her for life. I don't see any reason to think that rapists had any problem keeping that law. And this brings up the real problem with Paul's talk about "keeping the law of God." What "Law" did he mean? Certainly not the keeping of dietary laws ... those have nothing to do with righteousness. I like your statement that "The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey." That's a wonderful sentiment, but it really has nothing to do with Christianity per se, since the Golden Rule did not originate in Christianity. And if the Golden Rule is the only law we "must" obey (since the "love of God" is known only through love of others, 1 John 4:20-21), then why bother with the whole "Law of God" thing in the first place? The Golden Rule comes from the heart of any healthy human. It is the universal human foundation of morality. The idea of a "moral lawgiver" is absurd, since something is morally right or wrong regardless of anyone saying so.

Now as for the question of salvation through breeding: You wrote:

The reference about being saved through childbirth also has puzzled me from time to time. I wonder if it isnt' referring to the birth of the savior and being saved through Mary's virgin childbirth.

Yes, puzzling in the extreme. I think it is pretty likely that Paul was talking about women gaining salvific merit through their womanly duty of childbearing, like it was the only thing they were good for. It looks like a theological "slip of the tongue." Granted, it looks like a very small-minded view to us moderns, but Paul was not one of us. Your argument falls flat for me because it seems like trying to rescue the Bible from itself by making up whatever explanation necessary no matter how unlikely or unsupported from the text. Sorry ... just speaking plainly.

Thanks for your input. These are very important issues to me right now.

All the best,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-23-2011, 10:23 PM

[QUOTE=RAM;27054]Hey there Deut,

Very interesting answer! But I think there is a problem. Paul said that the Law was "holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7:12) even in the context of explaining how it could not impart life. Furthermore, God repeatedly said the Law would give wisdom and understanding (Deut 4:6, Ps 19:7).
How then can we dismiss it as void of "higher principles"? And Paul spoke of the first century Jewish view, which remains to this day, that the law was the very "form of knowledge and truth" (Rom 2:20). It seems impossible to believe that an omniscient God would give anything less than a perfect law to his people.
Not sure exactly where the idea of 'higher principles' comes from.
Edit: ok, read Deut 4:6. They were obviously higher principles than the surrounding countries. But, the 10 commandments were very very similar to laws that existed in Egypt. I'm not sure if Moses is referring to all the laws and statutues here in Duet 4 or just the primary 10 and their immediate extension. But none of the law of Moses is the Perfect law of Liberty.

I see your argument in the way you saw mine below. It's an argument that fits into ones present mindset about God. By selecting verses and sections from here and there, one can support most any perspective they have in mind at the time.

Rom 7 is in context between rom 6 and 8. In what meaning is Paul saying that the the law 'just and good'. Is this the same Paul who called it the administration of death in 2 Cor 3. Isn't it called inferior in Hebrews, abolished, decaying (in 60 AD). But in the same chapter of 2 Cor 3 he says that the administration of death had it's own sense of Glory. Is this the manner in which Paul says that the law is holy, just, and good. Was not the conditional, corporal, temporal way of the mosaic covenant declared NOT the way of Life right in the few opening chapters (4,5,18) of Deut.?? Wasn't it called the 'shadow' covenant and the negative covenant?
Didnt' the giving of the NC say that it would be NOT like the old and that he would put his law (freedom, love, respect for others dignity) in their hearts.

It's wisdom is found in understanding it's conditional, corporal contract as judged and condemned just as the corporal babylonian religions were condemned. There may or may not be some civil laws that could be gleaned from them; but certainly not on a wholesale level, and 'civil laws' could just as likely be better arrived at by understanding the freedom and life in new covenant ordinances rather than imposition of the old. There is also the fact of two natures of people on the earth to deal with. So the law may be 'holy, just and good, for the one nature, but oppressive to the people of the other nature.

Our court systems sometimes seem to operate on a 'you have to pay society for your 'sin'; rather than seeking restitution, restoration, and rehabilitation.

Here are some other verses which depict the 'chosen people'.

Deu 7:6 ¶ For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deu 9:4 Speak not thou in thine heartafter that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. ,
Deu 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This kindof aligns with Handegraff was saying and this was due to the other nations being under the influence of the babylonian cult religions. This is also what national Israel degenerated to. Is that in EZ 48 and following?..Deu 9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou [art] a stiffnecked people.
Deu 9:7 ¶ Remember, [and] forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.
Deu 9:8 Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.

Deu 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?

Now it is curious that you bring up the issue of our incapability of keeping the law. I agree that no one is perfect, but this is not the issue at hand. And worse - the moral reprobates could easily have kept the law in Deut 22 which said that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin only had to pay 50 shekels and then he got to keep her for life. I don't see any reason to think that rapists had any problem keeping that law. And this brings up the real problem with Paul's talk about "keeping the law of God." What "Law" did he mean? Certainly not the keeping of dietary laws ... those have nothing to do with righteousness. I like your statement that "The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey." That's a wonderful sentiment, but it really has nothing to do with Christianity per se, since the Golden Rule did not originate in Christianity. And if the Golden Rule is the only law we "must" obey (since the "love of God" is known only through love of others, 1 John 4:20-21), then why bother with the whole "Law of God" thing in the first place? The Golden Rule comes from the heart of any healthy human. It is the universal human foundation of morality. The idea of a "moral lawgiver" is absurd, since something is morally right or wrong regardless of anyone saying so.
Where is it that Paul talks about 'keeping the law". I know of Gal 4.
As for the second underlined thought. The law of faith and law of love are individual, indwelling and part of the Holy Spirits work. They don't stem from the 'Golden rule' in my understanding. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is subjective on the level of civility of the 'you'. Jesus saiid "love others" or do unto others... as I have loved and done unto you.
His other saying of Love others as you love yourself seems close to the golden rule, but insists of doing Good and being Good to oneself in equity with doing Good to another.

Now as for the question of salvation through breeding: You wrote:

The reference about being saved through childbirth also has puzzled me from time to time. I wonder if it isnt' referring to the birth of the savior and being saved through Mary's virgin childbirth.

Yes, puzzling in the extreme. I think it is pretty likely that Paul was talking about women gaining salvific merit through their womanly duty of childbearing, like it was the only thing they were good for. It looks like a theological "slip of the tongue." Granted, it looks like a very small-minded view to us moderns, but Paul was not one of us. Your argument falls flat for me because it seems like trying to rescue the Bible from itself by making up whatever explanation necessary no matter how unlikely or unsupported from the text. Sorry ... just speaking plainly.

Thanks for your input. These are very important issues to me right now.
I understand your reply:

I dont' think I am trying to 'rescue' the text but to understand it in light of Pauls other writings and it's context. We have a tendency to codify the NT writings into a form of law. That is not how they are to be understood, but as letters written to a specific people at a specific time.

The other perspective of that verse is to keep in mind that being 'saved' does not always mean being saved spiritually from absence of a Father-son spiritual relationship with God. Thus it "might not" refer to salvic restoration of a relationship with God... but in this case, i think from the context, it appears that it might refer to the non-exclusion of the female gender from that very relationship with God.
In the OT passages which refer to the intercovenantal time, this is the time of the birth of the new nation (Is 66) and of the 'seed of God' (Is 61) who are sons and daughters of God (EZ 14). This is also the generation (and beyond) to whom it was said: rejoice ye barren; for more are the children of the childless than the of those who have children. (is 61?)

Thus, it woudl seem highly unlikely and almost impossible that Paul is implying some type of saving relationship through thier personal physical childbirth.

I think the perspective of this being a 'saving' of the female gender through faith in the person brought forth from the act of virgin Mary (seed of EVE) is supported by Pauls mild seperation of the failures of Adam and Eve in that section. I dont' know if there was a possibility that people of that age wondered about God's justification and adoption by faith coming only to the males through Christ or not.?? Elsewhere, Paul says that there is now no jew nor greek, male nor female, slave nor free... etc.. and this is in reference to all persons counted in unbelief, so that he might have mercy on and call to faith all [kinds of] persons equally. This is the perspective that I have at the present time.

Edit: 1/30; There is also the contextual consideration that the 'saving' as noted before, is not a saving of being restored unto God through faith;(as that perspective has no foundation for consideration) but simply a 'saving' (deliverence) from self absorbtion, love for life, or from seeking to lord and usurp authority over menkind (from the context). The female (usually and especially in that culture) are given the duties of household management and childrearing. Both are possible considerations; but justification by faith and adoption as sons/daughters is equal to the sexes and is NOT obtained or given respect through childbirth, other than the possibility of BOTH sexes' general willingness to regenerate human life. But I don't think this is the 'saving' that is being referred to either.

But of course part of this discussion also depends on ones view of anything literal beyond Abraham?

I find it interesting that people before Abraham must have understood the implications of the need for a virgin born child from the promise made to Eve, since Nimrod made that claim of himself in a counterfeit, Rebellion, disbelief, Usurption...etc.. and followed it up with chaotic oppression and religion. Abraham was called out of that system with God saying ....."through YOU will all nations of the earth be blessed... implying NOT through Nimrods ways of false and counterfeit corporal religion. Do you know how many 'religions' and even govts fly the corporal rebellion flag of Nimrod?? Do you know that George Washington (and perhaps other inventors) are deified as 'sons of God' in the captial rotunda in D.C.? Isn't that what the Roman empire was doing with Caesar worship? Isn't that what Nimrod claimed? Where is that rolling on and pounding on the floor icon. And these are the guys who tell our colleges what to teach???

As for the comment about Paul not being 'one of us'....I dont' know if I agree.

These are very important issues to me right now.
Perhaps you could focus on the single issue. Is it of what Paul meant by the law being holy and 'keeping the law'.? Or is it weather or not present court systems should reflect mosaic law.? Or is it specifically the verses from Deut 22? Or is it the seeming immorality of some of the instructions of the law.?

CWH

01-24-2011, 03:03 AM

Now it is curious that you bring up the issue of our incapability of keeping the law. I agree that no one is perfect, but this is not the issue at hand. And worse - the moral reprobates could easily have kept the law in Deut 22 which said that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin only had to pay 50 shekels and then he got to keep her for life. I don't see any reason to think that rapists had any problem keeping that law. And this brings up the real problem with Paul's talk about "keeping the law of God." What "Law" did he mean? Certainly not the keeping of dietary laws ... those have nothing to do with righteousness. I like your statement that "The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey." That's a wonderful sentiment, but it really has nothing to do with Christianity per se, since the Golden Rule did not originate in Christianity. And if the Golden Rule is the only law we "must" obey (since the "love of God" is known only through love of others, 1 John 4:20-21), then why bother with the whole "Law of God" thing in the first place? The Golden Rule comes from the heart of any healthy human. It is the universal human foundation of morality. The idea of a "moral lawgiver" is absurd, since something is morally right or wrong regardless of anyone saying so.

Just wondering about the verse highlighted in bold... can an unbethrothed virgin reject the bethrothal of the rapist? How could a woman who was raped lived for life with the rapist....And the rapist go scotch-free by just paying 50 shekels...just doesn't make sense. What does Jewish custom say on this? It's like saying in the modern context, rape a virgin unmarried woman and pay $500 dollars fine and you can have her for life...wow, this is a rapist's paradise! If that is the case, people will rape all unbethrothed virgin women. And based on an eye for an eye... you raped my virgin sister, I raped yours....oh, what a mess! However, I don't see that as a common practice in ancient Jewish times. On the other hand, if the rapist rapes a betrothed woman, he will be stoned. Something just doesn't seems right here based on the law of justice. I believe there must be a missing clause somewhere in those ancient Jewish laws that will deter rampant rapes of unbetrothed virgins.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2011, 11:31 AM

Just wondering about the verse highlighted in bold... can an unbethrothed virgin reject the bethrothal of the rapist? How could a woman who was raped lived for life with the rapist....And the rapist go scotch-free by just paying 50 shekels...just doesn't make sense. What does Jewish custom say on this? It's like saying in the modern context, rape a virgin unmarried woman and pay $500 dollars fine and you can have her for life...wow, this is a rapist's paradise! If that is the case, people will rape all unbethrothed virgin women. And based on an eye for an eye... you raped my virgin sister, I raped yours....oh, what a mess! However, I don't see that as a common practice in ancient Jewish times. On the other hand, if the rapist rapes a betrothed woman, he will be stoned. Something just doesn't seems right here based on the law of justice. I believe there must be a missing clause somewhere in those ancient Jewish laws that will deter rampant rapes of unbetrothed virgins.

Many Blessings.
Here's a little info from the entry in Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. by Duane L. Christensen:

The compensation to the father is for loss in the expected bride price he would normally receive. In such cases, 'the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the girl fifty pieces of silver,' often interpreted as the normal bride-price for a virgin (cf. also Exod 22:15–16). Tigay has argued convincingly, however, that 'if the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average bride-price, the fifty pieces of silver paid by the rapist represents a combination of an average bride-price [thirty pieces of silver] plus punitive damages.' It should be noted that the law here deals only with a girl for whom a bride-price has never been paid. The law concludes with the statement that the rapist must marry the girl and that 'he may not divorce her all his days.' Once again, we have a law that runs contrary to common practice, for in subsequent Jewish tradition, in cases of both seduction and rape, both the girl and her father can refuse the marriage. Tigay has noted parallels in Middle Assyrian Laws ([1996] 209), where 'the rapist must pay triple the normal bride-price and marry the girl (if the father is willing) without right of divorce. If the rapist has a wife, a typically Mesopotamian measure-for-measure punishment is added: the girl’s father can have the rapist’s wife raped and then keep her' (Middle Assyrian Laws, A §55).[/URL] [URL="http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftnref1"] (http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1)So it looks like common sense overruled the "plain sense" of Scripture which simply declares that "she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." I think this exemplifies the status of women as property in the ANE (Ancient Near East). This is grossly amplified in the part of the quote that I highlighted blue which also exemplifies your concerns about "an eye for an eye." Given these facts, it is little wonder that the Jewish liturgy contains a prayer (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Liturgy_and_Prayers/Siddur_Prayer_Book/Preliminary_Readings/Who_Has_Not_Made_Me_a_Woman.shtml) that says "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me a woman."

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2011, 06:32 PM

Not sure exactly where the idea of 'higher principles' comes from.
Edit: ok, read Deut 4:6. They were obviously higher principles than the surrounding countries. But, the 10 commandments were very very similar to laws that existed in Egypt. I'm not sure if Moses is referring to all the laws and statutues here in Duet 4 or just the primary 10 and their immediate extension. But none of the law of Moses is the Perfect law of Liberty.

I see your argument in the way you saw mine below. It's an argument that fits into ones present mindset about God. By selecting verses and sections from here and there, one can support most any perspective they have in mind at the time.

Rom 7 is in context between rom 6 and 8. In what meaning is Paul saying that the the law 'just and good'. Is this the same Paul who called it the administration of death in 2 Cor 3. Isn't it called inferior in Hebrews, abolished, decaying (in 60 AD). But in the same chapter of 2 Cor 3 he says that the administration of death had it's own sense of Glory. Is this the manner in which Paul says that the law is holy, just, and good. Was not the conditional, corporal, temporal way of the mosaic covenant declared NOT the way of Life right in the few opening chapters (4,5,18) of Deut.?? Wasn't it called the 'shadow' covenant and the negative covenant?
Didnt' the giving of the NC say that it would be NOT like the old and that he would put his law (freedom, love, respect for others dignity) in their hearts.

It's wisdom is found in understanding it's conditional, corporal contract as judged and condemned just as the corporal babylonian religions were condemned. There may or may not be some civil laws that could be gleaned from them; but certainly not on a wholesale level, and 'civil laws' could just as likely be better arrived at by understanding the freedom and life in new covenant ordinances rather than imposition of the old. There is also the fact of two natures of people on the earth to deal with. So the law may be 'holy, just and good, for the one nature, but oppressive to the people of the other nature.

Those are some excellent observations, especially those highlighted red. All Christians would agree that the Law of Moses was inferior to the Law of Liberty in the "Gospel" sense. But that does not help us understand the faulty morality in the Law of Moses. That's the problem that seems insurmountable. How is it possible that the morality of "God's Law" is not good? There are many problems with it. The treatment of women as the property of men is but one of the more obvious. But there are other problems, such as the whole "eye for an eye" thing which is a horrible law that does not seem "moral" to me. I see nothing good about destroying the eyes or teeth of people as punishment. The violates the most common moral principle that "two wrongs do not make a right." And it is rightly rejected as leading to a world in which the people are blind and toothless. It seems to me that this rule is barbarism designed to satisfy the base human desire for revenge. What is it doing in the Bible?

Now it is curious that you bring up the issue of our incapability of keeping the law. I agree that no one is perfect, but this is not the issue at hand. And worse - the moral reprobates could easily have kept the law in Deut 22 which said that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin only had to pay 50 shekels and then he got to keep her for life. I don't see any reason to think that rapists had any problem keeping that law. And this brings up the real problem with Paul's talk about "keeping the law of God." What "Law" did he mean? Certainly not the keeping of dietary laws ... those have nothing to do with righteousness. I like your statement that "The law of faith and the law of love and the characteristics of the life of Christ are the laws we've come to obey." That's a wonderful sentiment, but it really has nothing to do with Christianity per se, since the Golden Rule did not originate in Christianity. And if the Golden Rule is the only law we "must" obey (since the "love of God" is known only through love of others, 1 John 4:20-21), then why bother with the whole "Law of God" thing in the first place? The Golden Rule comes from the heart of any healthy human. It is the universal human foundation of morality. The idea of a "moral lawgiver" is absurd, since something is morally right or wrong regardless of anyone saying so. Where is it that Paul talks about 'keeping the law". I know of Gal 4.
As for the second underlined thought. The law of faith and law of love are individual, indwelling and part of the Holy Spirits work. They don't stem from the 'Golden rule' in my understanding. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is subjective on the level of civility of the 'you'. Jesus saiid "love others" or do unto others... as I have loved and done unto you.
His other saying of Love others as you love yourself seems close to the golden rule, but insists of doing Good and being Good to oneself in equity with doing Good to another.

I don't know if they "stem from the Golden Rule" but I do think that they express the same idea. In my estimation, the command to "love" others is part of the Golden Rule.

These are very important issues to me right now.Perhaps you could focus on the single issue. Is it of what Paul meant by the law being holy and 'keeping the law'.? Or is it weather or not present court systems should reflect mosaic law.? Or is it specifically the verses from Deut 22? Or is it the seeming immorality of some of the instructions of the law.?
The central issue that is important to me right now is the moral failings of the Bible. Most Christians don't deal with this problem, opting rather to just sweep it under the carpet. I know that I did not give much thought to any of these problems during most of the years I studies Scripture. In hindsight, it seems like I was just plain blind to them because they contradicted my belief that the Bible really was the Word of God.

Thanks for working with me on this.

All the best,

Richard

CWH

01-24-2011, 10:16 PM

Here's a little info from the entry in Word Biblical Commentary : Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. by Duane L. Christensen:

The compensation to the father is for loss in the expected bride price he would normally receive. In such cases, “the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the girl fifty pieces of silver,” often interpreted as the normal bride-price for a virgin (cf. also Exod 22:15–16). Tigay has argued convincingly, however, that “if the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average bride-price, the fifty pieces of silver paid by the rapist represents a combination of an average bride-price [thirty pieces of silver] plus punitive damages.” It should be noted that the law here deals only with a girl for whom a bride-price has never been paid. The law concludes with the statement that the rapist must marry the girl and that “he may not divorce her all his days.” Once again, we have a law that runs contrary to common practice, for in subsequent Jewish tradition, in cases of both seduction and rape, both the girl and her father can refuse the marriage. Tigay has noted parallels in Middle Assyrian Laws ([1996] 209), where “the rapist must pay triple the normal bride-price and marry the girl (if the father is willing) without right of divorce. If the rapist has a wife, a typically Mesopotamian measure-for-measure punishment is added: the girl’s father can have the rapist’s wife raped and then keep her” (Middle Assyrian Laws, A §55).[/URL] [URL="http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftnref1"] (http://biblewheel.com/forum/#_ftn1)So it looks like common sense overruled the "plain sense" of Scripture which simply declares that "she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." I think this exemplifies the status of women as property in the ANE (Ancient Near East). This is grossly amplified in the part of the quote that I highlighted blue which also exemplifies your concerns about "an eye for an eye." Given these facts, it is little wonder that the Jewish liturgy contains a prayer (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Liturgy_and_Prayers/Siddur_Prayer_Book/Preliminary_Readings/Who_Has_Not_Made_Me_a_Woman.shtml) that says "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me a woman."

I do have a moral interpretation to this issue.

God commanded that man should multiply and be fruitful. For man this is not an issue as they are "mostly fruitful" thoroughout most of their life but not with women. Therefore, if a virgin woman remains unmarried for some reasons then she violates that commandment of God and deserves to be punished, that is through rape so that she become "fruitful" and she may have to live her life with the rapist. Therefore, if this virgin woman happens to be raped for this reason, then the rapist has to pay a price for the rape and accept to live with her for life. I think this is fair. I don't think it has anything to do with women as a property of men. However, if the rape is not for this reason but for reason such as lust as seen in some events in the Bible then the man who raped must be punished severely, that will serve as a deterrent to rampant rapes of unbethrothed virgins. Those unbethrothed virgins were probably those "unwanted" ones as the "wanted" unbethrothed virgins would have been bethrothed by then....

I believe that all God's laws that seems immoral to humans has a moral interpretation. I don't thnk there is any moral failings of the Bible. God must have a good reason to provide those laws. Just like national laws are for the good of its citzens so are God's laws which are good for God's children. Disobey them and you deserves to be punished. God don't provide laws for fun.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2011, 11:13 PM

I do have a moral interpretation to this issue.

God commanded that man should multiply and be fruitful. For man this is not an issue as they are "mostly fruitful" thoroughout most of their life but not with women. Therefore, if a virgin woman remains unmarried for some reasons then she violates that commandment of God and deserves to be punished, that is through rape so that she become "fruitful" and she may have to live her life with the rapist. Therefore, if this virgin woman happens to be raped for this reason, then the rapist has to pay a price for the rape and accept to live with her for life. I think this is fair. I don't think it has anything to do with women as a property of men. However, if the rape is not for this reason but for reason such as lust as seen in some events in the Bible then the man who raped must be punished severely, that will serve as a deterrent to rampant rapes of unbethrothed virgins. Those unbethrothed virgins were probably those "unwanted" ones as the "wanted" unbethrothed virgins would have been bethrothed by then....

I believe that all God's laws that seems immoral to humans has a moral interpretation. I don't thnk there is any moral failings of the Bible. God must have a good reason to provide those laws. Just like national laws are for the good of its citzens so are God's laws which are good for God's children. Disobey them and you deserves to be punished. God don't provide laws for fun.

Many Blessings.
Wow. That's a very creative interpretation Cheow. But there was nothing in the text supporting your speculations. On the contrary, the text refers to the virgin as a "na'arah" (translated as "damsel" in Deut 22:25) which means "young girl" or "young woman" of marriageable age, not an older woman who was "refusing" to marry. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the text that supports your suggestion of a woman refusing to marry. But even if there were, that would not make the law "moral." On the contrary, it would be grossly immoral for God to command men to rape women for the "crime" of refusing to be "fruitful and multiply." So even if your explanation were true, it would still be grossly immoral. Just imagine if God had written the law according to your interpretation. It would be like this:
Thus saith the LORD. If there be a virgin who refuses to marry a man, let one of the sons of Israel forcibly rape her (but without lust) so that she may be compelled to obey my loving command to be fruitful and multiply. I am the LORD.
Does that sound like a good moral law? Are you joking? Do you really believe your interpretation is true, or are you just messing with us? If your interpretation were true, there would be no reason for the lustless rapist to be fined! On the contrary, he was doing the Work of God!

Also, I don't understand why you would say that you "don't think it has anything to do with women as a property of men." Did you not notice that the penalty for rape depended on who "owned" the woman? If she belonged to her father, the rapist was fined, if she belonged to a husband, the rapist would be killed. Thus, the penalty depends on who owns the woman.

Rose

01-24-2011, 11:25 PM

CWH

01-25-2011, 01:48 AM

Wow. That's a very creative interpretation Cheow. But there was nothing in the text supporting your speculations. On the contrary, the text refers to the virgin as a "na'arah" (translated as "damsel" in Deut 22:25) which means "young girl" or "young woman" of marriageable age, not an older woman who was "refusing" to marry. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the text that supports your suggestion of a woman refusing to marry. But even if there were, that would not make the law "moral." On the contrary, it would be grossly immoral for God to command men to rape women for the "crime" of refusing to be "fruitful and multiply." So even if your explanation were true, it would still be grossly immoral. Just imagine if God had written the law according to your interpretation. It would be like this:
Thus saith the LORD. If there be a virgin who refuses to marry a man, let one of the sons of Israel forcibly rape her (but without lust) so that she may be compelled to obey my loving command to be fruitful and multiply. I am the LORD.
Does that sound like a good moral law? Are you joking? Do you really believe your interpretation is true, or are you just messing with us? If your interpretation were true, there would be no reason for the lustless rapist to be fined! On the contrary, he was doing the Work of God!

Also, I don't understand why you would say that you "don't think it has anything to do with women as a property of men." Did you not notice that the penalty for rape depended on who "owned" the woman? If she belonged to her father, the rapist was fined, if she belonged to a husband, the rapist would be killed. Thus, the penalty depends on who owns the woman.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. What I mean is that God would not give immoral laws to humans....don't you agree? God's law are for the good of God's people.....don't you agree? There must be either a misunderstanding of God's law or that we do not understand the purpose of God's law. Our human moral standards cannot compare to God, neither is our understandings; what is moral to humans may be immoral to God and vice versa.

There are a few questions that we need to ponder:

1. What is the difference between a virgin woman who refused to marry but was raped so that she is forced to marry than a virgin woman who refused to marry but was forced to marry a man against her wish?

2. Does refusal to marry and multiply constitutes to violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply? If so, is it fair that such violation or disobedience is punishable?

3. Whose moral standards is better and higher, God or human? God's way are higher than man's way and His thoughts we may not be able to fathom.

4. How about those "unwanted" women? .... were they supposed to be "cast out" of marriage and motherhood in violation of God's commandment? If it is due to God's purpose that these women remained single for the kingdom of God, then that's fine but if they did it on their own accord in full knowledge of the violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, then they have to be accountable for their actions.

5. Were women to be regarded as property of men so that men can do what they like to them? Certainly Not! I see marriage as a mutual contract sanctified by God rather than a mutual property transaction in favor of the man. Do animals marry? No, yet there seems to be an instinctive mutual contract between both sexes for the purpose of procreation.

6. I don't support rape and rape in whatever kind is a sin punishable by God. But if God allows such rapes to happen to fulfil his purpose such as killings of evil men, women and their offsprings and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, is there anything wrong?....or are we supposed to scold God for doing such detestable things?

I did mentioned in one of my posts that if all men and women today were not to marry and multiply, the human species will be extinct in 100 years time... that's probably one of the main purpose why God wants human to be fruitful and multiply. If human is extinct, then what is the purpose of God's creation?

I do agree with your statements here:

Did you not notice that the penalty for rape depended on who "owned" the woman? If she belonged to her father, the rapist was fined, if she belonged to a husband, the rapist would be killed. Thus, the penalty depends on who owns the woman.

Hope this clears the air.

Many Blessings.

joel

01-25-2011, 06:15 AM

Rose

01-25-2011, 08:50 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2011, 10:27 AM

As I follow this interesting conversation concerning the law.......can you provide a clarification?

I hear the terms......moral, and, immoral.....as applied to the law. Is there a specific reference that characterizes the law in this manner?

What is "moral" or "immoral" according to scriptural terms?

Joel
Hi Joel,

I'm glad you joined the conversation.

Here is the first set of definitions of the word "moral" from Webster's online:

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
conforming to a standard of right behavior
sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

There are countless verses that declare God's Law has the characteristics we describe with the word "moral." For example:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Those are statements about the moral character of God's Law. It is "right" and "clean" and "righteous altogether." The Bible is filled with statements like this.

This is what we are talking about. Are all the commandments and laws in the Bible moral? That is, are they "right" and "good" and "righteous altogether"? Most Christians assume so, but there are some cases where the Biblical Law does not appear to be moral, as in the case currently under discussion concerning the treatment of raped women.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2011, 11:05 AM

I think there is a misunderstanding here. What I mean is that God would not give immoral laws to humans....don't you agree? God's law are for the good of God's people.....don't you agree? There must be either a misunderstanding of God's law or that we do not understand the purpose of God's law. Our human moral standards cannot compare to God, neither is our understandings; what is moral to humans may be immoral to God and vice versa.

Hey there Cheow,

Yes, most Christians and Jews would probably agree that "God's Law" as taught in the Bible is not merely "good" but the very definition of goodness itself. Indeed, an old argument for the existence of God is the argument from morality which says there could not be any right or wrong if there were not a God to declare it. I consider this argument absurd because things are right or wrong in and of themselves, not because someone says so. But that's another argument.

And yes, most Christians would say that God's Laws were for the good of his people, and there is some biblical support for this. But it appears that the facts contradict this belief. I am not willing to distort what the Bible actually says to protect the doctrine that "God's Law is always good." Indeed, it would be IMMORAL for me to lie to myself and others about the truth of God's Law, would it not? Therefore, we are morally obligated to speak the truth about what the Bible really says. We are not free to twist the truth or to make excuses for bad things in the Bible. That would be like lying. It would be deception. And we know that lies and deception are immoral and wrong.

Now you made a statement that extremely disturbing. You asserted that:
"Our human moral standards cannot compare to God, neither is our understandings; what is moral to humans may be immoral to God and vice versa."
Please give me ONE example of something that is moral according to "God's standard" and immoral according to our "human standard." It goes without saying that "human moral standards" could be lower than God's, but certainly never higher! And that is the issue here. We are examining a Biblical law that looks morally abominable.

Now on to your questions:

1. What is the difference between a virgin woman who refused to marry but was raped so that she is forced to marry than a virgin woman who refused to marry but was forced to marry a man against her wish?
There is no difference of much significance since the woman was violated in both cases, but it may be that the latter was less violent since it was a social custom (arranged marriage). But this issue is totally irrelevant, since there is no mention of "refusal to marry" in the text.

2. Does refusal to marry and multiply constitutes to violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply? If so, is it fair that such violation or disobedience is punishable?
Your speculation is contrary to Scripture on two fundamental points. First, Scripture never states that it is wrong for a person to refuse to marry, and second, Scripture states that is morally good to refuse marriage! Paul taught it was morally "GOOD" for a man not to touch a woman, and even advised against marriage! And Jesus himself said that some men made themselves "eunuchs" for the sake of the kingdom.

So now you have three strikes against your speculative "solution" to fix God's word:

1) The text of Deut 22 says nothing about the woman being raped because she refused to marry.
2) The Bible never says anything about it being wrong for someone to refuse to marry.
3) The Bible says that it can be GOOD for someone to refuse to marry.

And please think of this most important question. Why do you have to twist your mind into convoluted knots to "fix" God's Word? It seems to me that this in itself is sufficient to show there is a "problem" here.

3. Whose moral standards is better and higher, God or human? God's way are higher than man's way and His thoughts we may not be able to fathom.
Human moral standards are often lower than those of God, but they certainly could never be higher. And that is the problem we are confronting. Some of the moral standards in the Bible appear to be abominable even according to our "low" human standards.

4. How about those "unwanted" women? .... were they supposed to be "cast out" of marriage and motherhood in violation of God's commandment? If it is due to God's purpose that these women remained single for the kingdom of God, then that's fine but if they did it on their own accord in full knowledge of the violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, then they have to be accountable for their actions.
Again, you suggest that rape and a life-sentence of living with your rapist is a "fair" punishment for a woman who refused to marry. I find this argument an absolute abomination. And besides, the whole issue is irrelevant since the text is talking about the crime of the man who forcibly raped a young virgin. And this is what is so very bad about your attempt to "rescue" the Bible from itself: your argument looks like a classic male excuse for rape that blames the victim. That is very bad Cheow. Have you no empathy for woman who have been abused and raped? Does it not bother you that the Bible allows a rapist to escape his crime with a mere fine? Can you not imagine how you would feel if this happened to you or to a woman you loved?

All the best,

Richard

Rose

01-25-2011, 02:22 PM

It’s a funny thing when you think about it: the first command God gives to man in the Bible is to 'be fruitful and multiply'. Now, the mere fact that all animals have a natural sex-drive pretty much assures that people will be multiplying. The only interruption in the story of fruitfully multiplying seems to be in the Garden of Eden, because there was no multiplying going on in there….at least among Adam and Eve.
Gen.1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
So, when people really got started fruitfully multiplying as God commanded what happens…..well, God comes along and destroys them all (except for eight) with a flood because He says they are too wicked. The next thing you know those eight saved soles are fruitfully multiplying again as God commanded…..
Gen.9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
And wouldn’t you know it...God comes along again, and destroys a whole bunch of them in Sodom and Gomorrah because he says they are too wicked, but this is not the end of the story. Jumping ahead in the Bible we see another time when God used the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and kill a whole bunch of people because wouldn’t you know it….they were too wicked, but it doesn’t stop there. Jumping ahead again to AD 70, Jerusalem is again destroyed, and millions of people killed: why…..because once again they are too wicked. It kinda makes you wonder why God wanted all this multiplying of people, if He’s just gonna keep killing them off. :confused:

Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-25-2011, 04:56 PM

Thought of this today regarding the view of woman as a possession.

They were in a militant compact to maintain their borders through military strength. As they failed at the exact purity of the law, their losses in battle would have increased. This was evident with Aiken under Joshua.

A woman (daughter) meant several 'sons' or grandsons possibly.
The phrase.. 'blessed' is the man who's quiver is full, has an obvious association of using his children (or especially sons) as arrows in battle. Thus some of the rules and laws of seeing women as childbearing objects were associated with this aspect of needing to keep the ranks full.

A couple comments that I picked up on when reading the ECF's is that Nero considered the sect as haters of humanity due to their apparent lack of desire to promlugate it. This may have been in part due to the intercovanental period they were in. But even later in the dialogue with trypho, the jew notes that the 'christian sect' does not seem to reguard a need for large families but calls each otehr 'brothers' and sisters'. It's obvious that they of Trypho's day did not abstain or look negatively on children and families, but there must have been some remaining communal elements.

Something to consider.

As for the statement about Ps 19; there are several aspects of statutes, commandments, precepts and law that are related to maintaining faith in a GOOD GOD and that this temporal corporal covenant was NOT the good way of God and that the fulfillment of the covenant of Peace and Mercy was still forthcoming. IF one reads the mosaic covenant law (deuteronomy) closely, you can see that even in it's giving it is declared in a negative light and promised to fail and reveal their idolotry. It was put in the ark as a testimony AGAINST THEM.

Daniel refers to both covenants in chapter 9 for one example and he knows that the latter end of the temporal covenant was prophesied.

Hope that helps for some consideration....

Take care...

CWH

01-25-2011, 05:03 PM

Please make it clear that I abhor rape and I hate rape. Please STOP thinking I support rape. Rape (both in men and women) is a common tool in war to intimidate the enemies and if God used war and rape to fulfill His purpose, are we to blame God? Both war and rape are immoral in human terms yet God used them to accomplished His purpose.

[QUOTE=RAM;27085]Hey there Cheow,
Now you made a statement that extremely disturbing. You asserted that:
"Our human moral standards cannot compare to God, neither is our understandings; what is moral to humans may be immoral to God and vice versa."
Please give me ONE example of something that is moral according to "God's standard" and immoral according to our "human standard." It goes without saying that "human moral standards" could be lower than God's, but certainly never higher! And that is the issue here. We are examining a Biblical law that looks morally abominable.
Killings, destructions and rapes in war are immoral in human standard yet God used them for His purpose.

1. What is the difference between a virgin woman who refused to marry but was raped so that she is forced to marry than a virgin woman who refused to marry but was forced to marry a man against her wish?
There is no difference of much significance since the woman was violated in both cases, but it may be that the latter was less violent since it was a social custom (arranged marriage). But this issue is totally irrelevant, since there is no mention of "refusal to marry" in the text.
The issue is relevant in the discussion. In the first case the man rapes the woman and pays the fine, marry her and have her for life; in the other case, the woman is forced to marry, the man pays the marriage dowry and have sex with her after the marriage and have her for life. One did it before, the other after. Therefore, rape then marry and forced marriage then sex is no difference... and both are immoral in modern human terms yet they may not be immoral during those ancient times

2. Does refusal to marry and multiply constitutes to violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply? If so, is it fair that such violation or disobedience is punishable?
Your speculation is contrary to Scripture on two fundamental points. First, Scripture never states that it is wrong for a person to refuse to marry, and second, Scripture states that is morally good to refuse marriage! Paul taught it was morally "GOOD" for a man not to touch a woman, and even advised against marriage! And Jesus himself said that some men made themselves "eunuchs" for the sake of the kingdom.

So now you have three strikes against your speculative "solution" to fix God's word:

1) The text of Deut 22 says nothing about the woman being raped because she refused to marry.
2) The Bible never says anything about it being wrong for someone to refuse to marry.
3) The Bible says that it can be GOOD for someone to refuse to marry.

And please think of this most important question. Why do you have to twist your mind into convoluted knots to "fix" God's Word? It seems to me that this in itself is sufficient to show there is a "problem" here.
It goes in both ways:
- Obey God's instruction to be fruitful and multiply and ensure the survivability for the human race so as to meet God's purpose of creation
- Disobey God's instruction for the Good of the kingdom of heaven.

However, it is immoral if:
- Obey God's instruction to be fruitful and multiply and ensure the survivability for the human race so as to meet God's purpose of creation based on lust and rapes
- Disobey God's instruction for selfish reasons and faced the extinction of the human race/gene thus defeating the purpose of God's creation.

3. Whose moral standards is better and higher, God or human? God's way are higher than man's way and His thoughts we may not be able to fathom.
Human moral standards are often lower than those of God, but they certainly could never be higher. And that is the problem we are confronting. Some of the moral standards in the Bible appear to be abominable even according to our "low" human standards.
Some moral standards in the Bible appear to be immoral because of the way humans interpret them. Because our ways and thoughts are lower than God, we do not understand why God allows it which seems immoral in human terms such as killings, destruction, pillage and rapes in wars.

4. How about those "unwanted" women? .... were they supposed to be "cast out" of marriage and motherhood in violation of God's commandment? If it is due to God's purpose that these women remained single for the kingdom of God, then that's fine but if they did it on their own accord in full knowledge of the violation of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, then they have to be accountable for their actions.
Again, you suggest that rape and a life-sentence of living with your rapist is a "fair" punishment for a woman who refused to marry. I find this argument an absolute abomination. And besides, the whole issue is irrelevant since the text is talking about the crime of the man who forcibly raped a young virgin. And this is what is so very bad about your attempt to "rescue" the Bible from itself: your argument looks like a classic male excuse for rape that blames the victim. That is very bad Cheow. Have you no empathy for woman who have been abused and raped? Does it not bother you that the Bible allows a rapist to escape his crime with a mere fine? Can you not imagine how you would feel if this happened to you or to a woman you loved?
I abhor rape and I hate rape. Please STOP thinking I support rape. Every parents would love to see their children got married and bear children so that their generations continue. And the parents would have this same thoughts even if their children were abnormal and wish someone would marry them, have children and care for them... sometimes to the point of selling them. Would the parents seize at every opportunity to marry them off?..... Is this moral or immoral? Is this bad or good? that's my point.

Many Blessings

CWH

01-25-2011, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE=Rose;27086]It’s a funny thing when you think about it: the first command God gives to man in the Bible is to 'be fruitful and multiply'. Now, the mere fact that all animals have a natural sex-drive pretty much assures that people will be multiplying. The only interruption in the story of fruitfully multiplying seems to be in the Garden of Eden, because there was no multiplying going on in there….at least among Adam and Eve.
Gen.1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
So, when people really got started fruitfully multiplying as God commanded what happens…..well, God comes along and destroys them all (except for eight) with a flood because He says they are too wicked. The next thing you know those eight saved soles are fruitfully multiplying again as God commanded…..
Gen.9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
And wouldn’t you know it...God comes along again, and destroys a whole bunch of them in Sodom and Gomorrah because he says they are too wicked, but this is not the end of the story. Jumping ahead in the Bible we see another time when God used the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and kill a whole bunch of people because wouldn’t you know it….they were too wicked, but it doesn’t stop there. Jumping ahead again to AD 70, Jerusalem is again destroyed, and millions of people killed: why…..because once again they are too wicked. It kinda makes you wonder why God wanted all this multiplying of people, if He’s just gonna keep killing them off. :confused:

Why stop at AD 70? Wars and killings continue throughout the generations and to this day....WW1, WW2 etc. Wars and killings may be one way in which God destroy evil people and will continue destroying evil people. Is this good or is this bad? Isn't that what the Bible is all about...the destruction of evil people and the salvation of the righteous.

Thanks for your thoughts on "why God wanted all this multiplying of people, if He’s just gonna keep killing them (evil people) off"...You have the making of a futurist.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2011, 06:24 PM

As for the statement about Ps 19; there are several aspects of statutes, commandments, precepts and law that are related to maintaining faith in a GOOD GOD and that this temporal corporal covenant was NOT the good way of God and that the fulfillment of the covenant of Peace and Mercy was still forthcoming. IF one reads the mosaic covenant law (deuteronomy) closely, you can see that even in it's giving it is declared in a negative light and promised to fail and reveal their idolotry. It was put in the ark as a testimony AGAINST THEM.

I agree that the Law contained testimony against the sinning Jews, but the "Law" (Torah) is also presented as the archetype of morality. God's testimony against sin MUST not itself command sin! That's the problem. Some of the commandments seem immoral. Specifically, the treatment of women as the property of men, and the fact that the woman had to marry her rapists, to name two of the central problems we are discussing.

@ndregm

01-26-2011, 12:17 AM

Deut 22:23 A man who rapes a betrothed virgin would be killed.
Deut 22:28 A man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin would be fined fifty shekels.

The implications are perfectly clear. The penalty is based on who OWNS the woman! ...

Well, Richard, I am disappointed with the way you quoted the verses and made a conclusion thereof so carelessly. The various situations presented throughout the chapter should have helped us understand that the case in verse 28 is not a rape (cf verse 25) but comparable to the case in verse 23-24.

If that is not enough, Exodus 22:16-17 is there to help us see the case more clearly.

Rgds,
@

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-26-2011, 03:00 AM

I agree that the Law contained testimony against the sinning Jews, but the "Law" (Torah) is also presented as the archetype of morality.
I disagree. It is not applicable or administered by the Good God in any way in the New covenant today other than as a negative. It may have contained some moral aspects such as equity and honesty in dealings, which were higher in morality than surrounding nations; so I'm not saying that every rule/law or statute was negative, but the mosaic covenant way of seeking blessing from God is abolished.

I dont' think/believe that it's testimony was against the 'sinning jews' but against the law itself. That why the apostles progressively ceased participation in it's ordinances which as you noted in the other post... were nailed to the cross. Yes, some likely have beneficial principles which may have been given as 'law' until the reason for their benefit were understood, but as noted in the last post, some of the laws, ordinances were very specific to their temporary national purpose to judge the other babylonian cult nations (Deut 9), which they would become after the new covenant was established.

Recall, these at least many of them were called rebellious, unbelieving...etc.. who God was going to destroy if Moses had not pleaded with him...

Some of the laws, instructions and ordinances (such as clean/unclean meats) may have been just to increase and maintain the temporal seperation between them and the other nations.

In this way and for their temporal purposes, these also were God's prerogative and 'moral'; but at about the same time the gospel began going out to the 'unclean' nations, Peter was given the vision to eat the 'unclean' things. (40 yr transitional period)

Here's an example of the use of the words statutes as referring to the instructions of Jesus/God in the New Covenant which is referred to in this chapter.

Ez 37:24 And David my servant (JESUS) [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: (JESUS/Holy Spirit they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. Even though this is prophesied in the old covenant time period, it's referring to the judgments, statutes which Christ established in the New Covenant. This is the same as Matt 5:19 which refers to the New Teachings of Christ begun in the sermon of the mount. As per Jer 31, they aren't additional teachings, but contrasting teachings.

"Don't think I've come to stop the ending and curse of the law....I've not come to stop...but to fulfill it's ending..

[John] For the law came by Moses, but Grace and Truth through Jesus Christ.

For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ has set me free from the law of sin/death.. (GARDEN judgment/curse) Fulfillment of proto-evangelion.

Paraphrasing in Romans 7 or 8...(talking to believers).. what a 'wretched man' am I; being set free from the law, I no longer have the law to return to in order to please God... who shall relieve me of this dilema... Thanks be to the Father for His (good) Spirit [which says as if in a booming voice from above]... this is my beloved son/daughter IN WHOM I am well pleased [APART from and contrary to the Law of Moses] On their forehead is stamped, 'approved, justified, Adopted as full blood sons/daughters of the living God. And the Spirit, then progressively develops the fruits of the spirit.
I also agree with the new poster Andregm that some of your points are by selecting verses here and there, taken out of context from the principles established as a whole. But even those principles may not be applicable outside of God's temporal purposes of the law of Moses.

I trust the Spirit will continue to answer your ponderings and questions as you continue to trust that he is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

Rose

01-26-2011, 08:46 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-26-2011, 10:48 AM

Well, Richard, I am disappointed with the way you quoted the verses and made a conclusion thereof so carelessly. The various situations presented throughout the chapter should have helped us understand that the case in verse 28 is not a rape (cf verse 25) but comparable to the case in verse 23-24.

If that is not enough, Exodus 22:16-17 is there to help us see the case more clearly.

Rgds,
@
Hey there @ndre,

I'm glad you joined the conversation! But your judgment that I was "careless" is invalid. The is no evidence from the text of Deut 22:28 that the girl was "enticed" as in Exo 22:16. On the contrary, the context shows that the issue was the penalty for violent rape depending on whether or not the girl was betrothed. I am not the first person to see this. Here are the observations offered by E. H. Merrill in his entry in the The New American Commentary:
22:28–29 At first glance the next example, the rape of an unbetrothed girl, might appear to have been a lesser offense than those already described, but this was not the case at all. First, he seized (Heb. tāpaś, 'lay hold of') her and then lay down (šākab) with her, a clear case of violent, coercive behavior. Moreover, the assailant had forever marred the purity of the woman, making it nearly impossible ever to enjoy a normal, happy marriage. This had negative repercussions on her father as well, for he stood to lose the bride price (Heb. môhār) that a prospective husband would have paid him (cf. Gen 34:12; Exod 22:16; 1 Sam 18:25). In fact, the compensation for this loss was the fifty shekels of silver assessed as a penalty by the court (v. 29). This was half the amount demanded of the man who misrepresented his wife’s virginity (v. 19), for she already was married and would never have command any additional bride price whereas the girl in the present situation not only would have afforded her father fifty shekels of compensation for her humiliation but most certainly the normal bride price in addition.
Every word I wrote is confirmed by this independent witness (which, by the way, I had not read before writing my post). We see a similar judgment in Duane L. Christensen's entry in the Word Biblical Commentary which he titled "Two Laws on Rape" and contrasted the rape of an unbetrothed virgin in Deut 22:28 with the seduction of an unbetrothed virgin in Exo 22:16. Apparently, the price of the penalty was different:
The compensation to the father is for loss in the expected bride price he would normally receive. In such cases, 'the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the girl fifty pieces of silver,' often interpreted as the normal bride-price for a virgin (cf. also Exod 22:15–16). Tigay has argued convincingly, however, that 'if the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average bride-price, the fifty pieces of silver paid by the rapist represents a combination of an average bride-price [thirty pieces of silver] plus punitive damages.' It should be noted that the law here deals only with a girl for whom a bride-price has never been paid. The law concludes with the statement that the rapist must marry the girl and that 'he may not divorce her all his days.'
It would be helpful if you could provide any published commentary that supports your interpretation.

Finally, the context shows that the two cases are parallel. They are both about forcible rape, the only difference being whether the woman was betrothed or not:

Deut 22:25 But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
Deut 22:28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is NOT betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

All the best,

Richard

@ndregm

01-28-2011, 02:39 AM

Rose:

I don't think Richard was careless at all in his rendering of verse 28. When a man takes a woman by force that is called Rape; the word used is taphas meaning to seize, or catch by surprise. People need to quit trying to justify what the Bible says, but rather call it for what it is. Women were treated as property, as were slaves.

Another extremely clear case of Rape given as a command by Moses, is found in Numbers.

Num.31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Do you think those women went willingly with those men who kept them alive solely for their own sexual pleasure?

RAM:

Finally, the context shows that the two cases are parallel. They are both about forcible rape, the only difference being whether the woman was betrothed or not:
Deut 22:25 But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
Deut 22:28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is NOT betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

The basic morality was given in the Ten Commandments. The 7th says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I believe the Israelites understood well the meaning/definition of the word 'adultery', especially if we consider how Jesus sharpens the definition (Matthew 5:27-28).

IMO we should refer to this basic morality when we evaluate certain commands or laws.

Numbers 31 are about the instruction to exterminate the Midianites, and because a tribe or nation's identity is carried by the males consequently such instruction implies that all males have to be killed including the little ones. Matured or "non-virgin" women should also be killed for the reasons given in verse 16, leaving those young/virgin women free/alive simply because they stand beyond the scope of the instruction!

Isn't it quite clear? Why should we see the case with a "sexualized" mindset?

As for Deut. 22:25 and 28 the various examples given are intended to help the leaders in their judgment. It's impossible and not practical to present all possible cases. We see that in verse 25 the betrothed damsel is not specified as virgin or not, further it's assumed that because the case happened in the field the damsel cannot be proven as guilty because even if she cried for help nobody would hear. Meanwhile the case of a rape (in the clearest sense, that is, forcefully) is already mentioned as comparable to murder in verse 26.

I don't want to be lengthy. Hope you could read my mind on this matter.

Rgrds,
@

Rose

01-28-2011, 10:40 AM

The basic morality was given in the Ten Commandments. The 7th says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". I believe the Israelites understood well the meaning/definition of the word 'adultery', especially if we consider how Jesus sharpens the definition (Matthew 5:27-28).

IMO we should refer to this basic morality when we evaluate certain commands or laws.

Numbers 31 are about the instruction to exterminate the Midianites, and because a tribe or nation's identity is carried by the males consequently such instruction implies that all males have to be killed including the little ones. Matured or "non-virgin" women should also be killed for the reasons given in verse 16, leaving those young/virgin women free/alive simply because they stand beyond the scope of the instruction!

Isn't it quite clear? Why should we see the case with a "sexualized" mindset?

As for Deut. 22:25 and 28 the various examples given are intended to help the leaders in their judgment. It's impossible and not practical to present all possible cases. We see that in verse 25 the betrothed damsel is not specified as virgin or not, further it's assumed that because the case happened in the field the damsel cannot be proven as guilty because even if she cried for help nobody would hear. Meanwhile the case of a rape (in the clearest sense, that is, forcefully) is already mentioned as comparable to murder in verse 26.

I don't want to be lengthy. Hope you could read my mind on this matter.

Rgrds,
@

Hi @ndre,

What seems extremely clear to me is that the sexual part is built into the verse by the context of its wording, one does not have to import any ideas. Young virgin women are explicitly introduced into the text, so no other conclusion can be derived from it except that the virgins were to become the property of the men. The only reason a man would have any use for a woman from another race of people would be for sexual purposes, especially since the text make a point of identifying them as virgins.
Num.31:18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Can you imagine what those poor terrified young girls must have felt, to be raped by the men who slaughtered their entire families....it would have been merciful to them to have been killed with their families.

As I have said before; what really saddens me is when Christian men feel the need to justify such horrendous acts.

Rose

Rose

01-28-2011, 11:21 AM

Another serious problem that I think needs to be addressed; is reconciling the harsh, cruel manner children are treated in many Old Testament verses....supposedly as commanded by God, with the high regard that Jesus held for children.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

I think it's time to quit sweeping these glaring contradictions under the rug, or trying to justify them by merely saying it was because of the wickedness of the people. All through history extreme wickedness has existed and people have slaughtered each other; the difference being we don't have it written down in a book called the Word of God, and as being commanded by God. It's time to talk about these issues and try and come to some kind of understanding without trying to justify them.

Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-29-2011, 12:47 AM

Rose

01-29-2011, 10:27 AM

It seems that there is more going on here than legalized rules permitting rape and subsequent slavery to the man. Although this is how many people who seek/sought to please, be ruled by, or be self-justified by God through the old law read these descriptions.

A common theme that seems to be developing on this thread is the need for for those who feel the Bible is the Word of God, to in one way or another justify the horrendous behavior that is presented in Numbers 31. The text clearly details certain facts and for what ever reason chooses to leave out much of what the supposed exceedingly horrendous acts of the Midianites to deserve such slaughter. The one thing that can never be justified, or talked away is the overt presentation of the exclusion from death of the virgin girls. The text makes a point of identifying virginity as the only factor allowing them to escape the death penalty, and then to make matters even worse the virgins are given by Moses to the men. Remember, Moses is speaking to the men who he's telling to slaughter the non-virgin women and male children, and giving them the virgin girls. :eek:

I tend to agree with andregm that these are instructions and case study examples on how the elders were to administer justice. Though, for the believer in their individual relationship with their Father; the 10 commandments are not the highest standard or in effect as a means of corporal/national blessing now.

In people and freedom of the new covanent, the focus would be on Loving and respecting the individuality, heart and esteem of oneself in the Holy Spirit and then also of others. Rom 13 confirms that the New LOVE (for Him and for others) that the Creator puts in the heart when one turns in faith to Him is the fulfillment of the commandments.

If these are examples of how the Elders administer justice, shouldn't we be asking: "Where is God in the picture?"....there are many examples in the Bible where wrong behavior by the Jews was quickly punished by God, so if this was wrong why wasn't Moses punished? I think it's time to quit trying to justify what our moral sense calls wrong because it is contained in the Bible.

Blessings,
Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

01-29-2011, 11:32 AM

Rose

01-29-2011, 04:21 PM

The comments have gone a little too far out of perspective to continue interaction with them. There are historical, covanental and uncircumcised heart context to be considered. But, I think, If I'm not mistaken, your being a universalist would nullify any covanental context or circumcision of the heart and would take these laws as blanket statements that were and perhaps are to cover all mankind in all times due to apparently being a 'higher law'.

By contrast; Romans 13 implies that the 'higher powers' that we are to be subject to are the positive attributes of Creator God; his goodness, love, accesability as 'daddy'; his express nature and so forth.

As noted in the other thread about Matt 5; one cannot blame or judge God for the "apparent" immorality of some laws due to:

1. Our possible misunderstanding of their application (which has been shown here)
2. Our inability to fully comprehend the mind and thoughts of the people of that day, their motives or their uncircumcised heart, to which the law was applied.
3. God himself judged and abolished the mosaic law of the uncircumcised heart. and through Paul called it the administration of death
4. it's intent was corporal containment and to the nation of Israel.

We have often discussed on this forum how the church is not a gentile expansion of national covenant Israel and it's laws, but is a new entity that is Abraham's seed (Eve's virgin seed) and a "New Beginning and "New" Creation.

What is being called into question in this thread is not whether or not to blame or judge God for the immorality of certain laws in the Bible, but rather to question why those immoral laws are contained in a book called the Word of God, and recorded to have been given by God.

Secondly, if these commands given in the Bible are truly judged to be immoral, is it not our moral duty to declare it as such, and not try and sweep it under the rug or justify it? For far too long many Christians have been content to accept shallow, made up answers to their question concerning the morality of certain passages of the Bible, or have been afraid to question the morality of "God given" Scripture.

Blessings,
Rose

P.S. I no longer call myself a Universalist because I do not believe there is a Hell that anyone needs to be saved from, I now call myself a Realist.

Clifford

01-29-2011, 04:35 PM

Rose

01-29-2011, 11:07 PM

I think some of the laws that were given by God in the Old Testament that offend our modern sensibilities were concessions to the culture of that time and not God's perfect law. I say this based on Jesus's reply to the Pharisees of why God allowed them to write their wives a certificate of divorce if they did not want them anymore. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of their hearts that God allowed that but it was not what God intended from the beginning. From this we can see that God actually gave laws and regulations to Moses that were not his best or true intentions. Why was this? Because in their current unregenerate state they could not keep or follow God perfect law. That had to wait until God was able to write his laws in our hearts in the New Covenant.

This can also be seen in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus set aside some of the laws in the Old Testament that were given by God himself through Moses such as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I think many of those laws in the Old Testament were just a concession to the culture of their time. God knew that in their current state they could not keep His higher moral laws. Also I think that some of His laws that He gave through Moses that seem harsh according to our modern standards were probably an improvement over many of the laws of the surrounding cultures.

Hi Clifford,

The problem I see with the reasoning that the God given laws of the Old Testament were concessions to the culture of the time, is that if you carefully read the barbarism the Israelite's were practicing it was in many cases equally bad or worse than the practices of the surrounding pagan nations. Take a quick read through Numbers 31 and Judges 21 for starters, you will be surprised at the abominations carried out by the Israelite's that was apparently condoned by God.

The second problem I see with the unregenerate state of man being such that they could not follow God's perfect law, until it was written on their hearts is that I still see people who supposedly have Gods laws written on their hearts acting in unregenerate ways.

Rose

Clifford

01-30-2011, 06:39 PM

Hi Clifford,

The problem I see with the reasoning that the God given laws of the Old Testament were concessions to the culture of the time, is that if you carefully read the barbarism the Israelite's were practicing it was in many cases equally bad or worse than the practices of the surrounding pagan nations. Take a quick read through Numbers 31 and Judges 21 for starters, you will be surprised at the abominations carried out by the Israelite's that was apparently condoned by God.

The second problem I see with the unregenerate state of man being such that they could not follow God's perfect law, until it was written on their hearts is that I still see people who supposedly have Gods laws written on their hearts acting in unregenerate ways.

Rose

Hi Rose,

According to what Jesus said it certainty appears that some of the laws in the OT were concessions to their culture and the hardness of their hearts. As I mentioned in my previous post that is why Jesus said God allowed them to divorce there wives for any reason whatsoever, because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not what God has intended from the beginning. Also Jesus set aside the OT law of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye and hating your enemy. If those were God's perfect law why would Jesus set them aside? You can only conclude they were concessions to the culture of that time.

The story in Judges 21 was an inter-tribal disput that got out of hand and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites. Nowhere in there does it say that God told them to settle the conflict that way. They came up with that idea.

What happened in Numbers 31 was not an abomination as was pointed out by Glenn Miller in his article. That group of Midinites plotted together to turn the Israelites away from God so they could defeat them. Both the men and women were involved in that plot. Their destruction was the righteous judgment of God.

Clifford

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2011, 07:35 PM

Hi Rose,

According to what Jesus said it certainty appears that some of the laws in the OT were concessions to their culture and the hardness of their hearts. As I mentioned in my previous post that is why Jesus said God allowed them to divorce there wives for any reason whatsoever, because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not what God has intended from the beginning. Also Jesus set aside the OT law of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye and hating your enemy. If those were God's perfect law why would Jesus set them aside? You can only conclude they were concessions to the culture of that time.

Hey there Clifford,

I agree. So I guess this means we need to judge the OT law and reject that which is not really moral. For example, all the dietary laws like "no lobster, no pork" and so forth - they have nothing to do with "morality" at all. And we probably should reject the law that says we must stone our children if they "curse" their parents. And given these facts, I think the Christian argument against homosexuality base on Leviticus 18 must be rejected also.

The story in Judges 21 was an inter-tribal disput that got out of hand and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites. Nowhere in there does it say that God told them to settle the conflict that way. They came up with that idea.

That is not exactly correct. Judges 21 was part of a larger problem that began in chapters 19 and 20, and in Judges 20 God explicitly told them to attack Benjamin, and indeed, God explicitly told that he himself would deliver them into

Judges 20:27 And the children of Israel enquired of the LORD, (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28 And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days,) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the LORD said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into thine hand.
But the Lord did not merely "deliver" Benjamin, but actually smote them himself!

Judges 20:35 And the LORD smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that God was fully involved in all the battles in Judges 20 and 21. He spoke to them and approved of some of their actions, but never expressed any disapproval of any of their actions. These were the "people of God" getting explicit directions from God. We cannot excuse God when we feel like it.

All the best,

Richard

Rose

01-30-2011, 08:04 PM

Hi Rose,

According to what Jesus said it certainty appears that some of the laws in the OT were concessions to their culture and the hardness of their hearts. As I mentioned in my previous post that is why Jesus said God allowed them to divorce there wives for any reason whatsoever, because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not what God has intended from the beginning. Also Jesus set aside the OT law of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye and hating your enemy. If those were God's perfect law why would Jesus set them aside? You can only conclude they were concessions to the culture of that time.

Hi Clifford,

I take an entirely different view of many of the Old Testament laws. I think the laws were made up of customs and traditions of the peoples of that time period and how they viewed God. If you read many of the myths and traditions of other peoples in the same time period you will find many parallels, for example women were treated as property in many cultures which is exactly what you find in the Jewish culture. When Jesus came the only way he could relate to the people of his generation was by speaking to them in terms of their traditions and culture....that was the way they perceived God.

The story in Judges 21 was an inter-tribal disput that got out of hand and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites. Nowhere in there does it say that God told them to settle the conflict that way. They came up with that idea.

What happened in Numbers 31 was not an abomination as was pointed out by Glenn Miller in his article. That group of Midinites plotted together to turn the Israelites away from God so they could defeat them. Both the men and women were involved in that plot. Their destruction was the righteous judgment of God.

Clifford

The problem with Glenn Miller is that he made up facts out of whole cloth. Richard, and I have been doing a lot of in-depth research on this subject, so we know for a fact that the plot of the Midianites using their women to entice the Israelite men away from God was totally made up by Glenn Miller; there is no such thing found in the Bible. It is pathetic when a man feels the need to stoop to the level of trying to place the blame of the rape of innocent girls on the people who were the victims, to try and justify God.

Blessings,
Rose

Clifford

01-30-2011, 08:46 PM

I agree. So I guess this means we need to judge the OT law and reject that which is not really moral. For example, all the dietary laws like "no lobster, no pork" and so forth - they have nothing to do with "morality" at all. And we probably should reject the law that says we must stone our children if they "curse" their parents. And given these facts, I think the Christian argument against homosexuality base on Leviticus 18 must be rejected also.

Hi Richard,

I certainly agree any OT laws that were in conflict with NT teachings should be discarded. But homosexuality is also condemned in the NT. Romans 1:26-28 says;

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

There is no way to avoid the conclusion that God was fully involved in all the battles in Judges 20 and 21. He spoke to them and approved of some of their actions, but never expressed any disapproval of any of their actions. These were the "people of God" getting explicit directions from God. We cannot excuse God when we feel like it.

If you read the story closely the Israelites concocted the plan to attack the Benjamites themselves. They did not initially inquire of God what they should do. It was only after they decided to attack the Benjamites that they inquired of God. Even then they did not ask if they should attack them but only which tribe should go up first.

The Israelites went up to Bethel and inquired of God. They said, 'Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Benjamites?' Judges 20:18

Noticed they did not say should we go up to attack the Benjamites but only who should go up first. God could have said I don't want anyone to go up and attack the Benjamites but since they had already come up with this plan on their own and were intent on attacking the Benjamites God is essence was allowing them to do what they had set their hearts to do. This can be see in the result of first and second attempt to attack the Benjamites. Both times they were decisively defeated and lost 40,000 men in the process. Do you think if it was God's plan to attack the Benjamites in the first place they would have suffered such a great loss? Does not sound like God's hand in it to me. Recall the same things happened in their conquest of Canan. When they disobeyed God and tried to attack the enemy they were decisively defeated. But when God told them to go into battle they hardly suffered any casualties. By suffering such great casualties they should have realized God's hand was not in their plans. They only wanted God to bless the plan they had come up with.

Take care,

Clifford.

Clifford

01-30-2011, 09:40 PM

Hi Clifford,

I take an entirely different view of many of the Old Testament laws. I think the laws were made up of customs and traditions of the peoples of that time period and how they viewed God. If you read many of the myths and traditions of other peoples in the same time period you will find many parallels, for example women were treated as property in many cultures which is exactly what you find in the Jewish culture. When Jesus came the only way he could relate to the people of his generation was by speaking to them in terms of their traditions and culture....that was the way they perceived God.

The problem with Glenn Miller is that he made up facts out of whole cloth. Richard, and I have been doing a lot of in-depth research on this subject, so we know for a fact that the plot of the Midianites using their women to entice the Israelite men away from God was totally made up by Glenn Miller; there is no such thing found in the Bible. It is pathetic when a man feels the need to stoop to the level of trying to place the blame of the rape of innocent girls on the people who were the victims, to try and justify God.

Blessings,
Rose

The problem with Glenn Miller is that he made up facts out of whole cloth. Richard, and I have been doing a lot of in-depth research on this subject, so we know for a fact that the plot of the Midianites using their women to entice the Israelite men away from God was totally made up by Glenn Miller; there is no such thing found in the Bible. It is pathetic when a man feels the need to stoop to the level of trying to place the blame of the rape of innocent girls on the people who were the victims, to try and justify God.

Hi Rose,

It looks like he has some pretty solid facts to back up his position. Since a large number of Israelite men were involved it stands to reason there had to be quite a few women. There might have been a few Moabites in the local area but not enough for this large of a scale. Like Glenn Miller said the the kingdom of Moab was located about 30 miles to the south so to get all those women up there had to take an organized effort since it would have taken them about 3 days to travel that far.

It is pathetic when a man feels the need to stoop to the level of trying to place the blame of the rape of innocent girls on the people who were the victims, to try and justify God.

Making assumptions again. How do you know those girls were raped? The text does not say that. You are just reading that into the text based on your presuppositions.

Clifford

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2011, 09:45 PM

Hi Richard,

I certainly agree any OT laws that were in conflict with NT teachings should be discarded. But homosexuality is also condemned in the NT. Romans 1:26-28 says;

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Hey there Clifford,

Yes, I am familiar with that passage. I used to think it was an "explanation" for homosexuality. But when we look at the context we encounter a problem - it does not apply to gay Christians!
Romans 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
There are many gay Christians who have prayed, and fasted, and denied themselves, and begged God over and over with many tears to change their hearts to make them "normal" so they could live a "normal" Christian life. They want to glorify God. They are identical to any other devout Christian in every way except their attraction to people of the same sex. We can not explain their homosexuality as due to God "giving them over" to a reprobate mind. They profess Christ. They are not god-hating idolaters like those described in Romans 1, so Romans 1 does not apply to them.

If you look closely, you will find very few verses that touch the topic of homosexuality at all. Christ never addressed the topic, and the OT verses are restricted to the theocratic laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that do not directly apply to Christians. And most significantly, you will find none that have anything to do with a devout Christian who happens to be gay.

If you read the story closely the Israelites concocted the plan to attack the Benjamites themselves. They did not initially inquire of God what they should do. It was only after they decided to attack the Benjamites that they inquired of God. Even then they did not ask if they should attack them but only which tribe should go up first.

The Israelites went up to Bethel and inquired of God. They said, 'Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Benjamites?' Judges 20:18

Noticed they did not say should we go up to attack the Benjamites but only who should go up first. God could have said I don't want anyone to go up and attack the Benjamites but since they had already come up with this plan on their own and were intent on attacking the Benjamites God is essence was allowing them to do what they had set their hearts to do. This can be see in the result of first and second attempt to attack the Benjamites. Both times they were decisively defeated and lost 40,000 men in the process. Do you think if it was God's plan to attack the Benjamites in the first place they would have suffered such a great loss? Does not sound like God's hand in it to me. Recall the same things happened in their conquest of Canan. When they disobeyed God and tried to attack the enemy they were decisively defeated. But when God told them to go into battle they hardly suffered any casualties. By suffering such great casualties they should have realized God's hand was not in their plans. They only wanted God to bless the plan they had come up with.

Take care,

Clifford.
I agree, the Israelites seem to be the ones who concocted the plan. But still, it God explicitly confirmed it which means that he could just as well have said "Do not do this wicked sin!" but chose rather to tell them to do it and then to actively participate in it, so much so that the text declares that it was the Lord himself who "smote Benjamin before Israel" (Judges 20:35).

I think the most important thing is to really accept that the Biblical record portrays both God and "his people" as doing abominable things in the OT. Consider the gang-rape and murder in Judges 19 that caused the whole sequence of events. The murder and rape of one woman was amplified into the outright slaughter of an entire tribe of Israel with the spared virgins forced to live as "wives" to the remnant of the wicked tribe of Benjamin that had nothing left because of their sins. How can we be so hardhearted to try to cover this up? It is a crime of the first magnitude.

All the best,

Richard

Rose

01-30-2011, 10:11 PM

Hi Rose,

Making assumptions again. How do you know those girls were raped? The text does not say that. You are just reading that into the text based on your presuppositions.

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

It's pretty easy to determine that those young girls were raped. Imagine for a moment a young girl who has just witnessed her entire family slaughtered in front of her eyes, and then the men who murdered her family spare her because she is a virgin, and keep her to have sexual relations with....do you really think that is what that young girl wanted? The answer of course is absolutely NOT - that means she was raped....sexual relations against the will of the woman equals RAPE! That has nothing to do with my presuppositions.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2011, 10:27 PM

Hi Rose,

It looks like he has some pretty solid facts to back up his position. Since a large number of Israelite men were involved it stands to reason there had to be quite a few women. There might have been a few Moabites in the local area but not enough for this large of a scale. Like Glenn Miller said the the kingdom of Moab was located about 30 miles to the south so to get all those women up there had to take an organized effort since it would have taken them about 3 days to travel that far.

Hey Clifford,

You are touching upon the most grievous error in Glenn Miller's article. He invented a story without any Biblical or historical evidence. Here is what he wrote:
Then, all of sudden, Moabite women (“daughters of Moab”) start showing up there--in large numbers—having traveled in groups from the kingdom of Moab thirty miles south of there. ... So, these Moabite women show up, with government funding and security escorts, having carefully planned the trip, and having left all family responsibilities on indefinite “hold” back in Moab
There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about the Moabite women traveling to Shittim. There is nothing in the Bible about any "security escorts." There is nothing about "having carefully planned the trip." There is nothing about "having left all family responsibilities." Glenn Miller invented all this stuff. I've never seen such an abysmal fabrication presented as Biblical exegesis in my life.

And worse, the text directly contradicts his assertions! Consider this: Why would the Moabites import 32,000 young virgins along with all the women they supposedly shipped in to seduce Israel? Think about this! Those "young virgins" were never "used" to seduce Israel, else they would not be virgins. And why bring them anyway? Their presence in the "booty" suggests that they were part of a rather large town in that area. This is confirmed by the rest of the statistics which are characteristic of a well established town, not a military contingent and caravan carrying a bunch of women on a plot to seduce Israel:
Numbers 31:32 Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000.
Do you really think they shipped 675,000 sheep and 72,000 cattle and 32,000 virgins over a distance of 30 miles along with the women in some wicked plan to seduce Israel???? And as a final confirmation, the text states that Israel "burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts." There is only one conclusion: Glenn Miller's article is pure fiction. It is an utter absurdity that repeatedly ignores what the Bible actually states.

And there is another ridiculous error in his article. He appears to be plain ignorant of Scripture. Glenn Miller wrote:
The Israelite men immediate start having ‘regular’ sex with them--the Hebrew indicates extreme lustful abandon. (“The verb used to describe the action of the men is one normally used to describe the behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the people, as a man, bewhore themselves with foreign, pagan women. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of pagan religious systems of the day.” [EBCOT, Num 25])
The "Hebrew" indicates no such thing! Miller is talking about zanah - the standard Hebrew word for fornication and/or harlotry. It does not indicate anything special like "extreme lustful abandon." This is more fiction he invented to make the situation sound more lurid. But there is a much larger error here. Once again, he ignored a fundamental parallel passage that is strongly connected with this whole event. Consider these words from Moses:
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring (zanah) after their gods, and do sacrifice (zebach) unto their gods, and one call (qara) thee, and thou eat (akal) of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Exactly the same words from this warning are found in Numbers 25:
Numbers 25:1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom (zanah) with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called (qara) the people unto the sacrifices(zebach) of their gods: and the people did eat(akal), and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
Obviously, the meaning of "whoredom" in both passages is first and foremost a reference to Israel worshiping other gods. This is common knowledge amongst all competent Biblical scholars. The physical sexual aspect is secondary. It is not even mentioned in Exo 34 except in the implied sense of "taking their daughters unto thy sons" after the "whoredom" of worshiping other gods had already occurred.

This is why I said that Glenn Miller's article is an abomination. He did not even mention the primary Biblical texts that related to the issues at hand, and opted rather to create an imaginary scenario out of whole cloth and present it as the "Biblical truth."

All the best,

Richard

Gil

01-31-2011, 09:57 AM

Howdy Rose,

You say that you do not believe in hell.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

These are the words of an Elohim.

There were two trees in the Garden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The second Tree is Man.
Good and Evil are within the mind of Man in the Flesh.
Heaven and Hell are within the Mind.

Gil

Rose

01-31-2011, 10:14 AM

Howdy Rose,

You say that you do not believe in hell.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

These are the words of an Elohim.

There were two trees in the Garden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The second Tree is Man.

Good and Evil are within the mind of Man in the Flesh.
Heaven and Hell are within the Mind.

Gil

Hi Gil,

I must say I do agree....:thumb:

Blessings,
Rose

Clifford

01-31-2011, 07:03 PM

Hey Clifford,

You are touching upon the most grievous error in Glenn Miller's article. He invented a story without any Biblical or historical evidence. Here is what he wrote:
Then, all of sudden, Moabite women ('daughters of Moab') start showing up there--in large numbers—having traveled in groups from the kingdom of Moab thirty miles south of there. ... So, these Moabite women show up, with government funding and security escorts, having carefully planned the trip, and having left all family responsibilities on indefinite 'hold' back in Moab
There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about the Moabite women traveling to Shittim. There is nothing in the Bible about any "security escorts." There is nothing about "having carefully planned the trip." There is nothing about "having left all family responsibilities." Glenn Miller invented all this stuff. I've never seen such an abysmal fabrication presented as Biblical exegesis in my life.

And worse, the text directly contradicts his assertions! Consider this: Why would the Moabites import 32,000 young virgins along with all the women they supposedly shipped in to seduce Israel? Think about this! Those "young virgins" were never "used" to seduce Israel, else they would not be virgins. And why bring them anyway? Their presence in the "booty" suggests that they were part of a rather large town in that area. This is confirmed by the rest of the statistics which are characteristic of a well established town, not a military contingent and caravan carrying a bunch of women on a plot to seduce Israel:
Numbers 31:32 Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000.
Do you really think they shipped 675,000 sheep and 72,000 cattle and 32,000 virgins over a distance of 30 miles along with the women in some wicked plan to seduce Israel???? And as a final confirmation, the text states that Israel "burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts." There is only one conclusion: Glenn Miller's article is pure fiction. It is an utter absurdity that repeatedly ignores what the Bible actually states.

And there is another ridiculous error in his article. He appears to be plain ignorant of Scripture. Glenn Miller wrote:
The Israelite men immediate start having ‘regular’ sex with them--the Hebrew indicates extreme lustful abandon. ('The verb used to describe the action of the men is one normally used to describe the behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the people, as a man, bewhore themselves with foreign, pagan women. Always in the ancient Near Eastern context, references to sexual imagery such as this suggest interconnecting circles of sexual immorality tied to sacral rites of prostitution, essential parts of pagan religious systems of the day.' [EBCOT, Num 25])
The "Hebrew" indicates no such thing! Miller is talking about zanah - the standard Hebrew word for fornication and/or harlotry. It does not indicate anything special like "extreme lustful abandon." This is more fiction he invented to make the situation sound more lurid. But there is a much larger error here. Once again, he ignored a fundamental parallel passage that is strongly connected with this whole event. Consider these words from Moses:
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring (zanah) after their gods, and do sacrifice (zebach) unto their gods, and one call (qara) thee, and thou eat (akal) of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Exactly the same words from this warning are found in Numbers 25:
Numbers 25:1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom (zanah) with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called (qara) the people unto the sacrifices(zebach) of their gods: and the people did eat(akal), and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
Obviously, the meaning of "whoredom" in both passages is first and foremost a reference to Israel worshiping other gods. This is common knowledge amongst all competent Biblical scholars. The physical sexual aspect is secondary. It is not even mentioned in Exo 34 except in the implied sense of "taking their daughters unto thy sons" after the "whoredom" of worshiping other gods had already occurred.

This is why I said that Glenn Miller's article is an abomination. He did not even mention the primary Biblical texts that related to the issues at hand, and opted rather to create an imaginary scenario out of whole cloth and present it as the "Biblical truth."

All the best,

Richard

There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about the Moabite women traveling to Shittim. There is nothing in the Bible about any "security escorts." There is nothing about "having carefully planned the trip." There is nothing about "having left all family responsibilities." Glenn Miller invented all this stuff. I've never seen such an abysmal fabrication presented as Biblical exegesis in my life.

Hi Richard

Common sense would tell you that is what probably happened without it being explicitly stated in the Bible. For example, if a passage of scripture in the Bible said a man took a long journey you could safely assume he took provisions with him without it being stated in the text. The same way in this passage. It doesn't need to say anything about women traveling from Moab. Where else would a large number come from? Or it doesn't need to say there were security escorts or the trip was carefully planned. In those days groups traveling over considerable distances would need some kind of security to protect them from robbers and raiders. A trip with this many people would also need to be carefully planned, just like if you were organizing a large trip you would probably carefully plan it.

And worse, the text directly contradicts his assertions! Consider this: Why would the Moabites import 32,000 young virgins along with all the women they supposedly shipped in to seduce Israel? Think about this! Those "young virgins" were never "used" to seduce Israel, else they would not be virgins. And why bring them anyway? Their presence in the "booty" suggests that they were part of a rather large town in that area. This is confirmed by the rest of the statistics which are characteristic of a well established town, not a military contingent and caravan carrying a bunch of women on a plot to seduce Israel:
Numbers 31:32 Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000.
Do you really think they shipped 675,000 sheep and 72,000 cattle and 32,000 virgins over a distance of 30 miles along with the women in some wicked plan to seduce Israel???? And as a final confirmation, the text states that Israel "burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts." There is only one conclusion: Glenn Miller's article is pure fiction. It is an utter absurdity that repeatedly ignores what the Bible actually states.

I think you are making a fundamental error here. You are assuming that the town they attacked was located nearby. The time when the Israelites attacked the Midinites was some time after the events at Baal Peor when the Israelites were seduced. By this time those midities had went back home. I think this is confirmed in the text when it says among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. Now do you think the Israelites would be camped next door to the five kings of Midian? They were probably located a comfortable distance, like the 30 miles suggested in Glenn Millers article. So they did not need to ship 675,000 sheep and 72,000 cattle and 32,000 virgins over a distance of 30 miles because the Israelites went to the Midinite kingdom to attack them.

Take care,

Clifford

Clifford

01-31-2011, 07:10 PM

Hi Clifford,

It's pretty easy to determine that those young girls were raped. Imagine for a moment a young girl who has just witnessed her entire family slaughtered in front of her eyes, and then the men who murdered her family spare her because she is a virgin, and keep her to have sexual relations with....do you really think that is what that young girl wanted? The answer of course is absolutely NOT - that means she was raped....sexual relations against the will of the woman equals RAPE! That has nothing to do with my presuppositions.

Rose

Hi Rose,

You are presuming they had sexual relations with them. That is not stated in the text. If that occurred that would be rape but that is a presupposition on your part that the men had sex with those girls. They might have been spared because they were innocent and were taken into the Israelities homes and were not used for sex. We don't know for sure one way or the other.

Clifford

Rose

01-31-2011, 07:43 PM

Hi Rose,

You are presuming they had sexual relations with them. That is not stated in the text. If that occurred that would be rape but that is a presupposition on your part that the men had sex with those girls. They might have been spared because they were innocent and were taken into the Israelities homes and were not used for sex. We don't know for sure one way or the other.

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

The reason I presume that they kept the young girls for sexual purposes is because that is the reason given in the text. Moses specifically commands that all the women who have known a man to be killed, and only the ones who are virgins are to be kept for the Israelite men, that spells it out pretty clearly, they only wanted girls who could become their wives....that's why they also killed all the male children.

In Judges 21 it specifically states the reason they killed all the people in Jabesh-Gilead except the virgin girls, was for the explicit reason of needing wives, and then when they didn't have enough girls from Jabesh-Gilead they went to Shiloh and kidnapped 200 more virgin girls. It makes no sense to try and make the text say something other than what it says, because it offends our sense of morality.

Rose

CWH

01-31-2011, 08:02 PM

Hi Clifford,

The reason I presume that they kept the young girls for sexual purposes is because that is the reason given in the text. Moses specifically commands that all the women who have known a man to be killed, and only the ones who are virgins are to be kept for the Israelite men, that spells it out pretty clearly, they only wanted girls who could become their wives....that's why they also killed all the male children.

In Judges 21 it specifically states the reason they killed all the people in Jabesh-Gilead except the virgin girls, was for the explicit reason of needing wives, and then when they didn't have enough girls from Jabesh-Gilead they went to Shiloh and kidnapped 200 more virgin girls. It makes no sense to try and make the text say something other than what it says, because it offends our sense of morality.

Rose

I have some curious thoughts:

1. How do they know the girls were virgins? Were they to check every hymen?

2. What if some of them have never slept with men but lost their virginity through accidents?

3. If their purpose was procreation, was the killing of all women who have slept with men necessary? Once their husbands were killed, that would make them free to re-marry again isn't it?

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-31-2011, 08:30 PM

Hi Richard

Common sense would tell you that is what probably happened without it being explicitly stated in the Bible. For example, if a passage of scripture in the Bible said a man took a long journey you could safely assume he took provisions with him without it being stated in the text. The same way in this passage. It doesn't need to say anything about women traveling from Moab. Where else would a large number come from? Or it doesn't need to say there were security escorts or the trip was carefully planned. In those days groups traveling over considerable distances would need some kind of security to protect them from robbers and raiders. A trip with this many people would also need to be carefully planned, just like if you were organizing a large trip you would probably carefully plan it.

Hey there Clifford,

Well, one man's "common sense" is another man's absurdity. That's why we must establish the facts and avoid speculation to the best of our ability. When a lack of facts make this impossible, we then turn to the experts who have devoted their lives studying these issues. Invention of a novel speculative solution that has never been suggested by anyone in the history of the world is certainly a desperate measure of last resort. Did Glenn Miller cite a single Biblical scholar supporting his assertions about the Midianites shipping women to Shittim? No? Why not? I think it is because his "solution" was a personal invention with no support anywhere in the text, in critical scholarship, or even in "common sense." I have read a number of the premier published commentaries on this topic in the last week and have not found any support for his speculative solution. Have you been able to find any support for his theory? If so, please share it. Here is a typical analysis from R. D. Cole's commentary on Numbers in the The New American Commentary:
Critics have observed that several components in the account seem incredulous, including the annihilation of all the males of Midian, the enormous numbers of various animals seized in the plunder, and that none was missing or lost from Israel’s battalions. G. Wenham and Ashley have provided answers to these and other questions regarding the content and character of the narrative. First, it is an overstatement of the data in the narrative to suggest that the report of vv. 7–8, that Israelites 'killed all the males of Midian' including the kings (or tribal chiefs), implies that every male of every Midianite tribe from the Transjordan to Arabia to Sinai was exterminated in this one campaign. Obviously this was not the case since the Midianites are well attested in the biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. Taken in the historical context of this being a divinely directed follow-up campaign after the sinful Baal Peor incident (25:16–18; 31:3–8), this crusade was directed at the tribes or clans of Midianites who dwelled in the central and northern Transjordan highlands, in the vicinity of the lands of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Amorites. The Midianites of the southern regions, such as those of Moses in-laws, were on better terms with the Israelites or were not involved on this occasion.
Note that Cole directly contradicts Miller's suggestion that the woman were shipped in from the southern regions which included family members related to Moses himself! On the contrary, he takes the "common sense" approach and understands that the campaign was against "the tribes or clans of the Midianits who dwelled in the central and northern Transjordon highlands."

Now consider: just as there is no mention in Numbers 25 of the Midianites traveling 30 miles with a caravan of loose women to seduce Israel, so there is no mention in Numbers 31 of Israel traveling far to destroy the Midianites who had returned to the south. Likewise, such a long distance travel seems highly unlikely given that they returned to the camp in Shittim with 675,000 sheep and many thousands of cattle and the tens of thousands of women. There is nothing in the Bible supporting Glenn Miller's story, and as far as I know, there is no published commentary that supports it.

All the very best,

Richard

PS: I am very pleased with how you are conducting this conversation despite our strong disagreements. Well done! :thumb:

Rose

01-31-2011, 08:47 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-31-2011, 08:49 PM

I have some curious thoughts:

1. How do they know the girls were virgins? Were they to check every hymen?

2. What if some of them have never slept with men but lost their virginity through accidents?

3. If their purpose was procreation, was the killing of all women who have slept with men necessary? Once their husbands were killed, that would make them free to re-marry again isn't it?

Many Blessings.
I think Glenn Miller's explanation on this point was correct. The "test" for virginity was probably just a visual judgment based on age, clothing/jewelry that was worn only by married women, and whether or not the woman had children with her. It seems exceedingly unlikely that there could be any other test.

But your questions bring up another exceedingly significant subject that belongs in this thread. It is the "law" that says a woman must be stoned to death if her new husband "hates" her and accusers her of not being a virgin when they were married and she is unable to PROVE she was a virgin. And what was the "proof"? Here is the LAW:

Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 "and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' 15 "then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 "Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 "and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 "then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
It appears that the "cloth" that is spread before the elders is the sheet from the marriage bed that is supposed to have a little blood from the broken hymen. Therefore, if a girl happens to have had some (probably unknown) accident that broke her hymen and does not bleed on her wedding night, and her husband then believes she is a whore and hates her, then the innocent girl would be MURDERED according to this "law of God." It seems to me this law is both absurd and grossly immoral.

All the best,

Richard

Clifford

01-31-2011, 09:13 PM

Hi Clifford,

The reason I presume that they kept the young girls for sexual purposes is because that is the reason given in the text. Moses specifically commands that all the women who have known a man to be killed, and only the ones who are virgins are to be kept for the Israelite men, that spells it out pretty clearly, they only wanted girls who could become their wives....that's why they also killed all the male children.

In Judges 21 it specifically states the reason they killed all the people in Jabesh-Gilead except the virgin girls, was for the explicit reason of needing wives, and then when they didn't have enough girls from Jabesh-Gilead they went to Shiloh and kidnapped 200 more virgin girls. It makes no sense to try and make the text say something other than what it says, because it offends our sense of morality.

Rose

they only wanted girls who could become their wives....that's why they also killed all the male children.

Hi Rose,

If that was the case wouldn't Moses be going against what God told him earlier that they were not to intermarry with the nations around them? God had made it clear that they were not to associate with those nations they were displacing from the land of Canaan.

In Judges 21 it specifically states the reason they killed all the people in Jabesh-Gilead except the virgin girls, was for the explicit reason of needing wives, and then when they didn't have enough girls from Jabesh-Gilead they went to Shiloh and kidnapped 200 more virgin girls. It makes no sense to try and make the text say something other than what it says, because it offends our sense of morality.

Nowhere in this incident did God sanction what they did by killing the people of Jabesh-Gilead and taking the virgin girls for their wives.

Clifford

Clifford

01-31-2011, 09:42 PM

Hey there Clifford,

Well, one man's "common sense" is another man's absurdity. That's why we must establish the facts and avoid speculation to the best of our ability. When a lack of facts make this impossible, we then turn to the experts who have devoted their lives studying these issues. Invention of a novel speculative solution that has never been suggested by anyone in the history of the world is certainly a desperate measure of last resort. Did Glenn Miller cite a single Biblical scholar supporting his assertions about the Midianites shipping women to Shittim? No? Why not? I think it is because his "solution" was a personal invention with no support anywhere in the text, in critical scholarship, or even in "common sense." I have read a number of the premier published commentaries on this topic in the last week and have not found any support for his speculative solution. Have you been able to find any support for his theory? If so, please share it. Here is a typical analysis from R. D. Cole's commentary on Numbers in the The New American Commentary:
Critics have observed that several components in the account seem incredulous, including the annihilation of all the males of Midian, the enormous numbers of various animals seized in the plunder, and that none was missing or lost from Israel’s battalions. G. Wenham and Ashley have provided answers to these and other questions regarding the content and character of the narrative. First, it is an overstatement of the data in the narrative to suggest that the report of vv. 7–8, that Israelites 'killed all the males of Midian' including the kings (or tribal chiefs), implies that every male of every Midianite tribe from the Transjordan to Arabia to Sinai was exterminated in this one campaign. Obviously this was not the case since the Midianites are well attested in the biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. Taken in the historical context of this being a divinely directed follow-up campaign after the sinful Baal Peor incident (25:16–18; 31:3–8), this crusade was directed at the tribes or clans of Midianites who dwelled in the central and northern Transjordan highlands, in the vicinity of the lands of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Amorites. The Midianites of the southern regions, such as those of Moses in-laws, were on better terms with the Israelites or were not involved on this occasion.
Note that Cole directly contradicts Miller's suggestion that the woman were shipped in from the southern regions which included family members related to Moses himself! On the contrary, he takes the "common sense" approach and understands that the campaign was against "the tribes or clans of the Midianits who dwelled in the central and northern Transjordon highlands."

Now consider: just as there is no mention in Numbers 25 of the Midianites traveling 30 miles with a caravan of loose women to seduce Israel, so there is no mention in Numbers 31 of Israel traveling far to destroy the Midianites who had returned to the south. Likewise, such a long distance travel seems highly unlikely given that they returned to the camp in Shittim with 675,000 sheep and many thousands of cattle and the tens of thousands of women. There is nothing in the Bible supporting Glenn Miller's story, and as far as I know, there is no published commentary that supports it.

All the very best,

Richard

PS: I am very pleased with how you are conducting this conversation despite our strong disagreements. Well done! :thumb:

Hi Richard,

I am sure when could argue for quite some time about all the details of this event but I think we are getting away from the main point of the thread which is whether this incident in Numbers 31 was immoral. I say that it was not for the following reasons.

1. It is God's right to execute judgment upon anyone or group of people that have transgressed beyond a certain limit. Much like it is the right of our government to put to death those it deems have committed heinous crimes.

2. When God executed judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah he killed everyone in the city including innocent babies and children.

3. He killed the firstborn of Egypt which included many innocent babies.

4. His judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 caused the deaths of many innocent children.

This shows that unfortunately the immoral, sinful, and evil actions of adults affects innocent children.

Just like in WW11 many innocent children were killed in Germany by the Allied bombing of German cities in order to bring about the defeat of the Nazi regime. The point being that even in a good cause innocent people will suffer.

Take care,

Clifford

Rose

01-31-2011, 10:01 PM

Hi Rose,

If that was the case wouldn't Moses be going against what God told him earlier that they were not to intermarry with the nations around them? God had made it clear that they were not to associate with those nations they were displacing from the land of Canaan.

Hi Clifford,

You are absolutely right, God did command Moses not to intermarry with the nations around them, in fact in Deut. He told Moses to utterly destroy them all...
Deut.7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
....so what was Moses doing in Numbers 31 telling his soldiers to keep the virgin women of the Midianites for themselves? You know those young virgins were not going to remain virgins their entire lives.
Num.31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I guess we have a problem here that will never be solved.

Nowhere in this incident did God sanction what they did by killing the people of Jabesh-Gilead and taking the virgin girls for their wives.

Clifford

Whether or not God explicitly sanctioned it, He still allowed it with no rebuke or punishment for what they did. This is just one of many huge glaring problems with many biblical passages, which leads me to believe most of those accounts were just made up.

Blessings,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-31-2011, 10:18 PM

Hi Richard,

I am sure when could argue for quite some time about all the details of this event but I think we are getting away from the main point of the thread which is whether this incident in Numbers 31 was immoral. I say that it was not for the following reasons.

1. It is God's right to execute judgment upon anyone or group of people that have transgressed beyond a certain limit. Much like it is the right of our government to put to death those it deems have committed heinous crimes.

2. When God executed judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah he killed everyone in the city including innocent babies and children.

3. He killed the firstborn of Egypt which included many innocent babies.

4. His judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 caused the deaths of many innocent children.

This shows that unfortunately the immoral, sinful, and evil actions of adults affects innocent children.

Just like in WW11 many innocent children were killed in Germany by the Allied bombing of German cities in order to bring about the defeat of the Nazi regime. The point being that even in a good cause innocent people will suffer.

Take care,

Clifford
Hey there Clifford,

I see you point. Some judgments, like the flood, entail an inevitable collateral damage. There's no way around that. But this was not the case in Numbers 31. The innocent virgins were saved, but not the innocent male children. I have yet to see a believable explanation for this difference other than the obvious implication that the virgins were to be used for sex and reproduction by the men of Israel. It seems absurd to imagine that 32,000 perpetual virgins were to be introduced into the community of Israel! And again, I've never seen any Biblical scholar suggest such a scenario. We need to remember that these same Israelites had recently been caught fornicating with the Midianite women! It makes no sense to think they suddenly became disinterested in sex with them, especially in light of the stipulation that they be "virgins."

All the best,

Richard

Rose

01-31-2011, 10:43 PM

Hi Richard,

I am sure when could argue for quite some time about all the details of this event but I think we are getting away from the main point of the thread which is whether this incident in Numbers 31 was immoral. I say that it was not for the following reasons.

1. It is God's right to execute judgment upon anyone or group of people that have transgressed beyond a certain limit. Much like it is the right of our government to put to death those it deems have committed heinous crimes.

2. When God executed judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah he killed everyone in the city including innocent babies and children.

3. He killed the firstborn of Egypt which included many innocent babies.

4. His judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 caused the deaths of many innocent children.

This shows that unfortunately the immoral, sinful, and evil actions of adults affects innocent children.

Just like in WW11 many innocent children were killed in Germany by the Allied bombing of German cities in order to bring about the defeat of the Nazi regime. The point being that even in a good cause innocent people will suffer.

Take care,

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

I think we all agree that God can execute judgment upon anyone he wants, but the fact remains that a judgment cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time....but that's exactly how many of God's judgments appear to be. On one hand God is called a great and merciful God, and on the other hand He commands his people to show no mercy on the innocent....how can those things be reconciled?

The one problem I have with comparing human actions where innocent people get killed, like those that take place in war....with the actions of God, is that you are placing God on the level of a sinful human. God is omnipotent, nothing is impossible for Him....the innocent do not have to be judged with the guilty.

Blessings,
Rose

whirlwind

02-01-2011, 11:11 AM

In this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26814&postcount=13) from another thread, Moses claimed to base his morality on some "simple teachings from God's word" ...

Also, this thread is a good place to discuss other passages that are morally problematic, such as the joy of bashing baby heads against the rocks (Psalm 137:9).

Richard

Hi Richard, I used to be appalled at that verse too but now see it as....

Psalm 137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Who are "the little ones?" What are the "stones" they are "dasheth against?" There are Biblical "little ones" that believe in Him. There are other "little ones" that cause turmoil. The little ones being spoken of here are of Babylon. The stones they are dasheth by are God's people...meaning, they will be scattered by God's lively stones...us!

Zechariah 13:6-8 And one shall say unto Him, What are these wounds in
Thine hands? Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of My friends. Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is My fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Zechariah 9:16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of His people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon His land.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-01-2011, 10:05 PM

Hi Richard, I used to be appalled at that verse too but now see it as....
Psalm 137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Who are "the little ones?" What are the "stones" they are "dasheth against?" There are Biblical "little ones" that believe in Him. There are other "little ones" that cause turmoil. The little ones being spoken of here are of Babylon. The stones they are dasheth by are God's people...meaning, they will be scattered by God's lively stones...us!
Zechariah 13:6-8 And one shall say unto Him, What are these wounds in
Thine hands? Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of My friends. Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is My fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Zechariah 9:16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of His people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon His land.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ..
Hey there Whirlwind,

That's a very creative solution ... a little "too creative" if you know what I mean. I don't see how it solves the problem because the passages we are discussing in Numbers and Judges are from literal historical passages. In these passages, the "little ones" denote young children.

Are you saying that that books of Numbers and Judges are not literal in any way at all? They do not record real history? They are just parabolic stories made up of symbols representing believers and unbelievers?

All the best,

Richard

whirlwind

02-02-2011, 05:42 AM

Hey there Whirlwind,

That's a very creative solution ... a little "too creative" if you know what I mean. I don't see how it solves the problem because the passages we are discussing in Numbers and Judges are from literal historical passages. In these passages, the "little ones" denote young children.

Are you saying that that books of Numbers and Judges are not literal in any way at all? They do not record real history? They are just parabolic stories made up of symbols representing believers and unbelievers?

All the best,

Richard

They were literal events but they were also shadows of what is to come....in some you will see the same story being replayed over and over. Often the future event should be seen spiritually.

1 Corinthians 10:10 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The comment I previously made was in response to the verse you quoted in Psalms. In it, they didn't literally "hang harps upon willows," nor is the "daughter of Babylon" a literal female. So, where it is written "thy little ones" are "dasheth against the stones," it should also be seen figuratively.

Psalm 137:2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.

137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

To "dasheth" is to scatter. Who will scatter the little ones of Babylon? God's children...we are His precious stones. :D

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-02-2011, 09:27 AM

They were literal events but they were also shadows of what is to come....in some you will see the same story being replayed over and over. Often the future event should be seen spiritually.
1 Corinthians 10:10 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.The comment I previously made was in response to the verse you quoted in Psalms. In it, they didn't literally "hang harps upon willows," nor is the "daughter of Babylon" a literal female. So, where it is written "thy little ones" are "dasheth against the stones," it should also be seen figuratively.
Psalm 137:2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.

137:8-9 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.To "dasheth" is to scatter. Who will scatter the little ones of Babylon? God's children...we are His precious stones. :D

.
I agree that there are many "foreshadows" and typology that requires spiritual interpretation. That is a fundamental teaching of the Bible, and it would be impossible to understand the NT without this principle. E.g. Christ is not a literal lamb! Nor is he a literal door! But we can take this principle too far by making up interpretations that were not intended by God. How do you know that your interpretation of Psalm 137 is correct? There is no reason to assume that the harps were not literally hung on willows. But even if they were not, the meaning of the phrase would remain, namely, that they were not willing to play music for their Babylonian captors. Figurative language can be used in historical accounts. This does not justify inventing whatever meaning we want. And besides, I am confused by your identifications of the "little ones" and the "stones." You wrote:
Who are "the little ones?" What are the "stones" they are "dasheth against?" There are Biblical "little ones" that believe in Him. There are other "little ones" that cause turmoil. The little ones being spoken of here are of Babylon. The stones they are dasheth by are God's people...meaning, they will be scattered by God's lively stones...us!
You say "little ones" = believers or unbelievers. That's not much help, since it includes everyone! And you say that these particular "stones" are "us" whereas you could just as well have taken them as symbols of the commandments in God's Word (Mat 7:24). This is the problem - anyone can make up whatever interpretation they like. Why should we believe that one or the other is the interpretation God intended? How can we discern between the inventions of our imagination and the interpretations God intended?

It seems to me that the plain meaning is the true meaning. This Psalm expresses the hatred for Babylon felt by those who suffered under the horrific violence when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed many and took many captive.

All the best,

Richard

whirlwind

02-02-2011, 10:46 AM

I agree that there are many "foreshadows" and typology that requires spiritual interpretation. That is a fundamental teaching of the Bible, and it would be impossible to understand the NT without this principle. E.g. Christ is not a literal lamb! Nor is he a literal door! But we can take this principle too far by making up interpretations that were not intended by God. How do you know that your interpretation of Psalm 137 is correct?

That is true so I allow Him to guide me and He does in His Word. In it He provided the definitions of stones and little ones. And, as I know a believer wouldn't bash a child's head against a rock then there is another meaning.

There is no reason to assume that the harps were not literally hung on willows. But even if they were not, the meaning of the phrase would remain, namely, that they were not willing to play music for their Babylonian captors. Figurative language can be used in historical accounts. This does not justify inventing whatever meaning we want.

I agree with your interpretation of the harps. I had not thought of that but it certainly seems correct. I also agree that we cannot invent what we want. It should be in His Word but at the same time realize that His Spirit teaches us the deeper meaning of the written word....revelations.

And besides, I am confused by your identifications of the "little ones" and the "stones." You wrote:
Who are "the little ones?" What are the "stones" they are "dasheth against?" There are Biblical "little ones" that believe in Him. There are other "little ones" that cause turmoil. The little ones being spoken of here are of Babylon. The stones they are dasheth by are God's people...meaning, they will be scattered by God's lively stones...us!

You say "little ones" = believers or unbelievers. That's not much help, since it includes everyone! And you say that these particular "stones" are "us" whereas you could just as well have taken them as symbols of the commandments in God's Word (Mat 7:24). This is the problem - anyone can make up whatever interpretation they like. Why should we believe that one or the other is the interpretation God intended? How can we discern between the inventions of our imagination and the interpretations God intended?

Everyone is included. This life is an either-or proposition. We are children of God or...not.

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a Rock.

He is the Rock and we, as His children, are of His body.

It seems to me that the plain meaning is the true meaning. This Psalm expresses the hatred for Babylon felt by those who suffered under the horrific violence when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed many and took many captive.

All the best,

Richard

Were these written before or after Babylon took those of Jerusalem captive?

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-02-2011, 05:38 PM

I agree that there are many "foreshadows" and typology that requires spiritual interpretation. That is a fundamental teaching of the Bible, and it would be impossible to understand the NT without this principle. E.g. Christ is not a literal lamb! Nor is he a literal door! But we can take this principle too far by making up interpretations that were not intended by God. How do you know that your interpretation of Psalm 137 is correct?
That is true so I allow Him to guide me and He does in His Word. In it He provided the definitions of stones and little ones. And, as I know a believer wouldn't bash a child's head against a rock then there is another meaning.

How do you discern between God's guidance and your own ideas? How do you know if you heard God correctly? How do we resolve conflicts when two devout Christians think that God has given two conflicting interpretations? Personally, I use facts, evidence, and logic. That seems to be the only way.

Now as it turns out, believers are just people, and they can get just as angry as anybody else. So there is no basis for your assertion that a believer could not have actually written Psalm 137 and meant what it says. Indeed, if a believer would never even think to "bash a child's head against a rock" then a believer would never have written that Psalm, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And besides, your explanation does not help with the much bigger problem. God commanded his people to kill every man, woman, and child in some verses of the Old Testament. It seems quite impossible to believe that those passages were not meant literally. How do you understand them?

I also agree that we cannot invent what we want. It should be in His Word but at the same time realize that His Spirit teaches us the deeper meaning of the written word....revelations.

Yes, of course God's Spirit teaches us. But again, we must have a way to discern if the "explanation" we think came from God is true or not. Merely "believing" whatever ideas happen to enter our mind is not the path to truth.

It seems to me that the plain meaning is the true meaning. This Psalm expresses the hatred for Babylon felt by those who suffered under the horrific violence when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed many and took many captive.

All the best,

Richard

Were these written before or after Babylon took those of Jerusalem captive?

After.

whirlwind

02-03-2011, 05:58 AM

How do you discern between God's guidance and your own ideas? How do you know if you heard God correctly? How do we resolve conflicts when two devout Christians think that God has given two conflicting interpretations? Personally, I use facts, evidence, and logic. That seems to be the only way.

I "hear" through His Words. If it is written then it isn't my "own idea." The conflicts, I believe, should be resolved in the same manner...through what is written and not by man. Of course, room must be left for His Spirit to reveal the spirit of the written word...as in harps being hung on willows. :winking0071:

Now as it turns out, believers are just people, and they can get just as angry as anybody else. So there is no basis for your assertion that a believer could not have actually written Psalm 137 and meant what it says. Indeed, if a believer would never even think to "bash a child's head against a rock" then a believer would never have written that Psalm, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, believers get angry :D but as God is the author, and although He too gets angry....He wouldn't do or condone one of us...bashing a child's head. So, there is another meaning.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And besides, your explanation does not help with the much bigger problem. God commanded his people to kill every man, woman, and child in some verses of the Old Testament. It seems quite impossible to believe that those passages were not meant literally. How do you understand them?

I do think He literally commanded literal killings just as today we are to literally execute murderers and rapists and too there are wars to fight in which we are to stop the enemy. Which specific verses are you thinking of?

Yes, of course God's Spirit teaches us. But again, we must have a way to discern if the "explanation" we think came from God is true or not. Merely "believing" whatever ideas happen to enter our mind is not the path to truth.

I agree. The proof to me is....is it written? Is it compatible with other teachings, other verses? Does it guide you to deeper understanding?

After.

Yes, I agree. What is the time it speaks of?

When is the "daughter of Babylon" to be destroyed? Who is the One, the only One, that shall "rewardeth thee as thou hast served us?" To me, it is at judgment and during the millennium when "thy little ones" are dasheth/scattered, against or by the stones...which either refers to God's elect or The Rock.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-03-2011, 09:42 AM

I "hear" through His Words. If it is written then it isn't my "own idea." The conflicts, I believe, should be resolved in the same manner...through what is written and not by man. Of course, room must be left for His Spirit to reveal the spirit of the written word...as in harps being hung on willows. :winking0071:

Good morning Whirlwind,

I don't think I made myself clear. There have been millions of people who all agree that the words of the Bible are the words of God. But the same people often disagree vehemently about what those words mean because they interpret them differently. So merely appealing to "what is written" does not solve the problem. The conflicts are due to different methods of interpretation, so they will be resolved only by establishing the correct method of interpretation.

Yes, believers get angry :D but as God is the author, and although He too gets angry....He wouldn't do or condone one of us...bashing a child's head. So, there is another meaning.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Well, we still have the problem of when God or Moses commanded the killing of little children. This is the topic that started this thread. Specifically:
Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This is the problem we are discussing. Can we believe that God would give or approve of a command like this?

I do think He literally commanded literal killings just as today we are to literally execute murderers and rapists and too there are wars to fight in which we are to stop the enemy. Which specific verses are you thinking of?
Yes, they were quite literal. There are a number of texts where God commands the killing of innocent children. For example:
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
This is a direct command from God. Hummm ...

I agree. The proof to me is....is it written? Is it compatible with other teachings, other verses? Does it guide you to deeper understanding?

Yes, but the problem remains - folks disagree about the meaning of the things that are written. And there is good reason for this because much of what is written is ambiguous, fragmentary, incomplete.

All the best,

Richard

whirlwind

02-03-2011, 10:46 AM

Good morning Whirlwind,

I don't think I made myself clear. There have been millions of people who all agree that the words of the Bible are the words of God. But the same people often disagree vehemently about what those words mean because they interpret them differently. So merely appealing to "what is written" does not solve the problem. The conflicts are due to different methods of interpretation, so they will be resolved only by establishing the correct method of interpretation.

Well, we all think we laid the golden egg. :lol:

I believe the ambiguity is as He meant it to be. Sort of a testing of our souls to see if we can, or cannot, mature by leaving our "old man" behind as we come to terms with....I was wrong :eek:. I speak from experience. :D

He feeds us as we are capable of understanding and there are different levels of understanding in the Scriptures. Are the conflicts there because He wants them to be, to keep us learning, searching, teaching? I think so.

Well, we still have the problem of when God or Moses commanded the killing of little children. This is the topic that started this thread. Specifically:
Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This is the problem we are discussing. Can we believe that God would give or approve of a command like this?

Yes. I believe He gave the commandment.

Yes, they were quite literal. There are a number of texts where God commands the killing of innocent children. For example:
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
This is a direct command from God. Hummm ...

Yes, it is a direct command.

Yes, but the problem remains - folks disagree about the meaning of the things that are written. And there is good reason for this because much of what is written is ambiguous, fragmentary, incomplete.

All the best,

Richard

Indeed we do. One day we shall all be in agreement as were the chosen long ago.

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

.

Richard Amiel McGough

02-03-2011, 04:30 PM

Well, we all think we laid the golden egg. :lol:

I believe the ambiguity is as He meant it to be. Sort of a testing of our souls to see if we can, or cannot, mature by leaving our "old man" behind as we come to terms with....I was wrong :eek:. I speak from experience. :D

He feeds us as we are capable of understanding and there are different levels of understanding in the Scriptures. Are the conflicts there because He wants them to be, to keep us learning, searching, teaching? I think so.

Well stated! Nice use of emoticons. You're a forum artist. :thumb:

I like your suggestion about "testing souls" and especially the idea that the conflicts are part of the learning process.

Another perspective is found in the answer to the question of "How would God reveal divine truth without destroying our freedom?"

And another way to look at it is that we are currently in formation in the "dark of the womb" or perhaps more like a germinated seed deep in the earth, and it would be bad for our development if God shined his big bright light on us too soon.

So there are many possibilities about why God gave us a Bible with so much ambiguity and uncertainty. My favorite answer is that it is God's way of confounding the fundamentalists who like to declare What The Bible Really Means And Why You Are Going To Hell If You Disagree With Me.

Indeed we do. One day we shall all be in agreement as were the chosen long ago.

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

.
Are you saying the Apostles drove a Honda? :p

Richard Amiel McGough

02-03-2011, 04:33 PM

Getting back to the topic at hand:

:focus:

Yes, they were quite literal. There are a number of texts where God commands the killing of innocent children. For example:
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
This is a direct command from God. Hummm ... Yes, it is a direct command.

So how are we to understand this? God is God, he could have chosen some other way to get rid of the wicked people without ordering the murder of babies.

We know murdering babies is wrong and immoral.

God commanded his people to murder babies.

If we form a syllogism, the conclusion would be "God is immoral." But that contradicts Christian doctrine.

So we can reject the doctrine that the Bible is always right, and conclude that the Israelites did immoral things in the name of God.

Or we can assert that "whatever God does is moral by definition" but then our concept of morality is rendered meaningless.

Or ... ????

whirlwind

02-03-2011, 04:51 PM

Well stated! Nice use of emoticons. You're a forum artist. :thumb:

Actually, I am a portrait artist. :)

I like your suggestion about "testing souls" and especially the idea that the conflicts are part of the learning process.

Another perspective is found in the answer to the question of "How would God reveal divine truth without destroying our freedom?"

And another way to look at it is that we are currently in formation in the "dark of the womb" or perhaps more like a germinated seed deep in the earth, and it would be bad for our development if God shined his big bright light on us too soon.

So there are many possibilities about why God gave us a Bible with so much ambiguity and uncertainty. My favorite answer is that it is God's way of confounding the fundamentalists who like to declare What The Bible Really Means And Why You Are Going To Hell If You Disagree With Me.

:lol:

Are you saying the Apostles drove a Honda? :p

:lol: I had to think about that one for a minute. You just lightened my mood which had became rather darkened. I thank you.

.
.

whirlwind

02-03-2011, 04:59 PM

Getting back to the topic at hand:

:focus:

So how are we to understand this? God is God, he could have chosen some other way to get rid of the wicked people without ordering the murder of babies.

We know murdering babies is wrong and immoral.

God commanded his people to murder babies.

If we form a syllogism, the conclusion would be "God is immoral." But that contradicts Christian doctrine.

So we can reject the doctrine that the Bible is always right, and conclude that the Israelites did immoral things in the name of God.

Or we can assert that "whatever God does is moral by definition" but then our concept of morality is rendered meaningless.

Or ... ????

The written word, at least in the text, is correct. If something is out of place, out of character, then there is a lesson. Dig in to discover what is meant. However, it could be no more than we aren't to know the mind of God. God is love but God isn't a powder-puff. He has requirements, laws, commandments and expectations as well as punishments.

.

Rose

02-03-2011, 09:52 PM

The written word, at least in the text, is correct. If something is out of place, out of character, then there is a lesson. Dig in to discover what is meant. However, it could be no more than we aren't to know the mind of God. God is love but God isn't a powder-puff. He has requirements, laws, commandments and expectations as well as punishments.

.

If it is beyond our capabilities to know the mind of God, and all we can do is to use our own human judgment to determine right from wrong, how will we ever be able to make any sense of what is written in the Bible? What seems right in our eyes is wrong in God's eyes, and what is right in God's eyes is wrong in our eyes...:dizzy:

The only way we as humans can interpret the Bible is through our own understanding, or some other humans understanding....so it seems like we are caught in a loop that there is no escape from...:dontknow:

Blessings,
Rose

CWH

02-04-2011, 02:06 AM

If it is beyond our capabilities to know the mind of God, and all we can do is to use our own human judgment to determine right from wrong, how will we ever be able to make any sense of what is written in the Bible? What seems right in our eyes is wrong in God's eyes, and what is right in God's eyes is wrong in our eyes...:dizzy:

The only way we as humans can interpret the Bible is through our own understanding, or some other humans understanding....so it seems like we are caught in a loop that there is no escape from...:dontknow:

Blessings,
Rose

I think we need to be careful to interpret morality and immorality in our human understanding. Take for example, it is considered as immoral to be naked in public places but to some of the native tribes in the jungles of Amazon, it is not immoral to be naked. Yet in the modern world, some people think it is not immoral to do so and exposed themselves shamelessly at pornographic sites

It is immoral to kill innocent children but to some of the tribes of the Amazon jungles, it is not immoral to do to sacrifice these children to their gods. In the modern world it is immoral to kill children yet it seems moral to kill millions of fetus in abortions daily.

It is immoral to kill humans yet humans kill humans in wars like nobody business in the name of national defense. It seems moral to kill another human in capital punishment in the name of justice.

What seems right in our eyes is wrong in God's eyes, and what is right in God's eyes is wrong in our eyes. But anyway I trust God that whatever he did is for the good of God's people and His kingdom.... dont't you trust God or do you trust human understanding of morality and immorality? His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Even Abraham trusted God with no question asked and even willing to sacrifice his son for he knew that whatever God did was for the good of His people and His kingdom. If God were to ask you to sacrifice your son today, would you trust Him and do it without questioning and doubting? The answer is obviously NO, but if there is an understanding that after you killed your son, God will raised him up as a testimony to the unbelievers of the power of God and give your son everlasting life, now would you still do it?

Many Blessings.

whirlwind

02-04-2011, 05:45 AM

Rose

02-04-2011, 09:10 AM

Rose, your tag line is a perfect response to the above....Trust in the Lord with all your heart. We shouldn't trust in "our own human judgment" in determining "right from wrong," for He is very specific on commandments and statutes. Right and wrong has been decided....forever.

As we follow our Lord and trust in Him...we have escaped the world, which is what we are to do. :) His spirit guides us, teaching the depth of His Words, things hard to be understood at times yet rich in meaning.

.
Hi Whirlwind,

Ah, but when making moral judgments we can ONLY trust in our own sense of right and wrong, by using the Golden Rule....we must even use our "own human judgment" to judge the Bible with! How funny is that....:hysterical:

Blessings,
Rose

whirlwind

02-04-2011, 09:31 AM

Hi Whirlwind,

Ah, but when making moral judgments we can ONLY trust in our own sense of right and wrong, by using the Golden Rule....we must even use our "own human judgment" to judge the Bible with! How funny is that....:hysterical:

Blessings,
Rose

If we trust in our own sense then do we "trust in the Lord" with all our heart? Are we then placing our judgment over that of God?

To me, if He lives in us then would not our judgment be His judgment. The human is taken out of the equation. Should there ever be a question...it is written for us. And, I agree, the Golden Rule is certainly the best measure. :)

.

Rose

02-04-2011, 09:51 AM

If we trust in our own sense then do we "trust in the Lord" with all our heart? Are we then placing our judgment over that of God?

To me, if He lives in us then would not our judgment be His judgment. The human is taken out of the equation. Should there ever be a question...it is written for us. And, I agree, the Golden Rule is certainly the best measure. :)

.

I'm in the process of re-thinking many things, so I appreciate your feedback. :winking0071:

If I trust in the Lord with my heart, then what I am doing is trusting in the the perception I have of the Lord....that perception could be true, or it could be what I've been taught by others to be true....that is what I need to determine. The only way I can determine that is to use my own judgment, so we are back to leaning upon our own understanding of God. Gets a bit loopy...:p

Blessings,
Rose

whirlwind

02-04-2011, 10:12 AM

I'm in the process of re-thinking many things, so I appreciate your feedback. :winking0071:

If I trust in the Lord with my heart, then what I am doing is trusting in the the perception I have of the Lord....that perception could be true, or it could be what I've been taught by others to be true....that is what I need to determine. The only way I can determine that is to use my own judgment, so we are back to leaning upon our own understanding of God. Gets a bit loopy...:p

Blessings,
Rose

I am constantly rethinking many things (and it's not easy for an old bird like me)...part of our maturing process.

If we think it true and agree with others then there is yet one other mountain we must climb. Does it agree with what is written?

.

Moses

02-04-2011, 10:59 AM

The reference about being saved through childbirth also has puzzled me from time to time. I wonder if it isnt' referring to the birth of the savior and being saved through Mary's virgin childbirth.

Yes, puzzling in the extreme. I think it is pretty likely that Paul was talking about women gaining salvific merit through their womanly duty of childbearing, like it was the only thing they were good for

I think this is easily solved when we view Paul's statement through Paul's world view (which was not modern western 'christian', but eastern-jewish-christian). Being 'saved' was not always salvation in its fullest sense (resurrection unto the presence of God)...but was often times meant as being 'Saved' from a wicked, filthy, corrupt, defiled, GENTILE way of life. In Paul's world view, culture, and time, women were best saved from this 'gentile' way of life by being 'modest' 'self-controlled' and by 'child rearing'--- These things would keep the woman SEPERATE from the defilements of the world. This 'seperateness' is the salvation that is in view, imo (not ultimate salvation).

As for the law of Moses, morallity, 'problem' scriptures, etc:
I can sum up what I think is the best view to have with this statement

"If I had the power of God I would change the world--If I had the wisdom of God I would leave it just the way it is"

Personally, I don't have any problems with any 'problem' scriptures.

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
Psalm 137

Good for the psalmist feeling this way...He is speaking from the heart! Would we rather him put on hypocrisy and speak 'nice things' about his enemy when he does not really feel that way. He blesses the one who will repay evil to his enemies.
But remember also, The psalmist over and over again blesses YHWH. . . the God who himself also, by his own hand, struck down 'little ones' and burnt them up in sodom and drowned them in the waters of the flood (because he counted them as enemies).
So the psalmist is just taking on the nature of what he has seen his own God do.
And I don't have a problem with this.

I don't have a problem that David, after slaying many enemies with the sword took his bloody hands and raised them up to the Lord and gave thanks for God giving him the skill to be able to kill his enemies...And I don't have a problem that God blessed David for doing such, and I don't have a problem that God goes so far as to 'brag' about his 'mighty men' and 'warriors' that he gave the skill to kill with the sword. And I don't have a problem that that same 'man of God' takes his sword and strikes down the child of his enemy because his tribal God YHWH (who is the only God) told him to do it, and set the example in doing it himself.

Why should it suprise us if Israel stuck down their enemies (men, woman, children) with the sword . . . when Israel's God (who is God) does/did the same thing. Like father like son...both YHWH and Israel were 'mighty warriors' with sword in hand.

note: of course I am saying these things in the context of them being under the old covenant age "old world". . . (but, things are a bit different here in the new covenant, new 'heavens and earth'...:)).

Rose

02-04-2011, 04:43 PM

.

As for the law of Moses, morallity, 'problem' scriptures, etc:
I can sum up what I think is the best view to have with this statement

"If I had the power of God I would change the world--If I had the wisdom of God I would leave it just the way it is"

Personally, I don't have any problems with any 'problem' scriptures.

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
Psalm 137

Good for the psalmist feeling this way...He is speaking from the heart! Would we rather him put on hypocrisy and speak 'nice things' about his enemy when he does not really feel that way. He blesses the one who will repay evil to his enemies.
But remember also, The psalmist over and over again blesses YHWH. . . the God who himself also, by his own hand, struck down 'little ones' and burnt them up in sodom and drowned them in the waters of the flood (because he counted them as enemies).
So the psalmist is just taking on the nature of what he has seen his own God do.
And I don't have a problem with this.

I don't have a problem that David, after slaying many enemies with the sword took his bloody hands and raised them up to the Lord and gave thanks for God giving him the skill to be able to kill his enemies...And I don't have a problem that God blessed David for doing such, and I don't have a problem that God goes so far as to 'brag' about his 'mighty men' and 'warriors' that he gave the skill to kill with the sword. And I don't have a problem that that same 'man of God' takes his sword and strikes down the child of his enemy because his tribal God YHWH (who is the only God) told him to do it, and set the example in doing it himself.

Why should it suprise us if Israel stuck down their enemies (men, woman, children) with the sword . . . when Israel's God (who is God) does/did the same thing. Like father like son...both YHWH and Israel were 'mighty warriors' with sword in hand.

note: of course I am saying these things in the context of them being under the old covenant age "old world". . . (but, things are a bit different here in the new covenant, new 'heavens and earth'...:)).

Hi Moses,

I'm not quite clear on the point you are making. It seems like you are saying that God has changed his mind about the way he does things now that we are under the New Covenant?

And as far as having a problem with the things you listed....I have a HUGE problem with them because supposedly it was God who commanded these things be done...:eek:

Blessings,
Rose

Silence

02-05-2011, 07:15 AM

Hello Everybody,
Hopefully everyone who reads the bible wrestles with the subject that is being discussed in this thread. How can we make sense out of some of the things that God orders to be done, and reconcile the "hard" things, like the killing of women and children at His command with the way He is portrayed in the new testament? Could it be that from God's perspective it was more merciful for Him to kill people or have them killed at His command than it would be for Him to allow them to continue living the way they were? Was God limited in what He could do for people like the Egyptians, Moabites or Amalekites because He had no one to reach them through? He had ancient Israel, and they seem to have misunderstood what He needed from them. When they camped in the wilderness of Sinai in Exodus 19 and God told them what He wanted to do with them (make them His "peculiar, treasured people") and through them (make them kings and priests to the rest of mankind), they jumped at the chance without honestly considering the necessary pre-conditions they would have to fulfill in order for this to come about. They were united in claiming "all that the Lord has spoken we will do", in spite of their already sketchy track record. I believe what God wanted from them was for them to be broken and cry out to Him and say "We want to be Your people and special treasure, but we've already shown that we can't do what is required by obeying Your voice". Kind of like what John did in Revelation when he wailed in travail when no one was found worthy to open the scroll. But they don't. Once they accept this offer and become God's instrument for reaching the rest of humanity, God has to start working on them to prepare them, and then once that is done, He can start working through them to reach the world. The first thing He has to do is show them the impossibility of the task. But that is not going to be easy. Maybe one reason God tells them to do such harsh things is to show them the undesirable and unpleasant way He is forced to work through the only instrument He has. Since they are weak and can be easily led astray, they were told to kill all those around them who might cause them to turn away from the Lord. They did what all of us do if left to ourselves. They compromised. They could have asked the Lord to help them be strong and resist the temptations of their enemies so they wouldn't have to destroy them. But they didn't. They also couldn't bring themselves to fully carry out the destruction the Lord had told them to do either. I don't know if that was done out of pity for the women and children, or if they wanted to use them as servants for their own purposes since they were powerless to refuse.

It is interesting that the first step the Lord has them take in becoming His people is to have Moses "sanctify" them (what that entailed isn't fully spelled out) and to have them wash their "clothes" (seem-lah). It doesn't say anything about them washing themselves, which in a "typical" sense would seem more important. But that may be hinted at in the word seem-lah which is translated as "clothes", since this word denotes the way clothing takes on the form of who ever is wearing it (cognate with the English word sim-il-ar ?) Could be kind of like when Paul tells us to "put on Christ and make no provision for fulfilling the desires of the flesh". Being ready for the third day is a pretty clear allusion to the resurrection. Maybe the only options are "Die and wait to be raised up or try to hold on to your life and be forced to kill others".

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-05-2011, 08:45 AM

Psalm 137:9 "Blessed are those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."
Ephesians 5:22 "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord."
[/LIST]
Rose
Hi Rose.
As Andregm mentioned; there is a contextual reading and understanding to these that I believe is being missed.
Ps 137:9 seems to have an obvious focus on the time period of either the babylonian or the Roman invasion. Most likely the Roman. Although not the way of life; this seige and sword through the international armies of Rome were neccessary at that time due to the actions of the unbelieving leadership of the house of Israel; as they were intent on eliminating those who believed differently than what they did and who believed on Jesus as the seed of Eve promised in the hearts.
Jesus said, if those days had not been shortened, no flesh would remain.
I don't know if that refers to believers in Christ; or to those remaining in the house of Israel, or that eventually all human life would end.

Eph 1 summarizes;
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 5:begins;
1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

vs 21 expands the topic:
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

and after the wife is addressed, the topic continues;

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28So ought men to love their wives as (in the same way they love) their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Rose

02-05-2011, 11:11 AM

Hi Rose.
As Andregm mentioned; there is a contextual reading and understanding to these that I believe is being missed.
Ps 137:9 seems to have an obvious focus on the time period of either the babylonian or the Roman invasion. Most likely the Roman. Although not the way of life; this seige and sword through the international armies of Rome were neccessary at that time due to the actions of the unbelieving leadership of the house of Israel; as they were intent on eliminating those who believed differently than what they did and who believed on Jesus as the seed of Eve promised in the hearts.
Jesus said, if those days had not been shortened, no flesh would remain.
I don't know if that refers to believers in Christ; or to those remaining in the house of Israel, or that eventually all human life would end.

Eph 1 summarizes;
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 5:begins;
1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

vs 21 expands the topic:
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

and after the wife is addressed, the topic continues;

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28So ought men to love their wives as (in the same way they love) their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Hi Endtimes,

Focusing on Eph.5:22 for the moment, and addressing the specific point of "wives being submissive unto their husbands", here's the problem: throughout much of history woman have been considered the property of men, which Paul is making very clear in this verse by the asymmetry of telling the women to submit....while telling the men to love.

The inclusion of this one statement has caused immense, untold miseries for woman, because of how men have abused its meaning. Paul was speaking from the traditions and customs of the time, but many who have read those verses since then have interpreted them to mean it is God's command that all women of all times submit to whatever their husbands decree....and that no woman be allowed to speak in church or teach a man!

Blessings,

Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

02-05-2011, 01:35 PM

Hi Endtimes,

Focusing on Eph.5:22 for the moment, and addressing the specific point of "wives being submissive unto their husbands", here's the problem: throughout much of history woman have been considered the property of men, which Paul is making very clear in this verse by the asymmetry of telling the women to submit....while telling the men to love.

The inclusion of this one statement has caused immense, untold miseries for woman, because of how men have abused its meaning. Paul was speaking from the traditions and customs of the time, but many who have read those verses since then have interpreted them to mean it is God's command that all women of all times submit to whatever their husbands decree....and that no woman be allowed to speak in church or teach a man!

Blessings,

Rose

Hi Rose:
Again; I believe your pulling a single verse out of the context of it's meaning within the book and it's chapter.

The scope of the book seems to be or include the summary verses of chapter 1.

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.The fullness of God indwelling humans, born of the Spirit of Creator of Life, is part of the prelimiinary foundation of the book.

Then after 3 other chapters he expands to an application using the particularly significant relationship of male/female; husband...wife.

The husband/wife discussion is used as an example of application after his points about those re-born in the Spirit and life of God submitting themselves to one another in genuine truth and love.

chapter 4.
18Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

20But ye have not so learned Christ;

21If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

25. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32. And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Elsewhere in other books, Paul mentions to not defraud one another.
And in Gal 5 we have the positive fruits of the Spirit which are contrary to the carnal, jealous or envious nature.

In this continued context of the the Spirit of Christ filling a 'body' we have in chapter 5.

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
And in this context
we have the example of a 'husband' and woman, both of the true body of Christ who's sins have been erased devoted to each other.

Problems arise though when those who are not truly inhabited with his forgiveness, or know his Love are considered part of the body due to their church membership or attendance or religious appearance.

You have accurately noted that if these verses such as vs 22 are read as instruction and a system of law for the church to operate under for a false self-justification; they can and have been misapplied and create more damage than good.

I read them as a very common example and application, in his general instructions to true members of his body to interact with one another, due to their being fulled with His Spirit of Love.

Paul was speaking from the traditions and customs of the time
I understand how you have that perspective if you take vs 22 out of it's context to establish a code for legalized adherance. But that system is dead and gone. Paul is not writing New Law which create "sin" if not obeyed. He is writing encouragement and instruction based on the new foundation of the fullness of God and His Spriit of Love and truth residing within those who are justified freely against personal iniquity and given eternal life through the Spirit of Life in Christ.

Paul was speaking from the desire to see people grow into the unity of the Spirit of Love during the context of his explaination of people of Christ being his present representation and filling of God..."all in all".

I expect I've explained this about the best I can as far as how I think it is to be understood in the context of the Spirit of Love and Life and the filling of His Spirit.

Take care n God bless.

Rose

02-05-2011, 05:19 PM

Hi Rose:
Again; I believe your pulling a single verse out of the context of it's meaning within the book and it's chapter.

The scope of the book seems to be or include the summary verses of chapter 1.
The fullness of God indwelling humans born of the Spirit of Creator of Life is part of the prelimiinary foundation.

Then after 3 other chapters he expands to an application (using the particularly significant relationship of male/female; husband...wife.

The husband/wife discussion for whatever that means to people is subordinate to the general idea of those truly re-born in the Spirit and life of God submitting themselves to one another in genuine truth and love.

Elsewhere in other books, Paul mentions to not defraud one another.
In Gal 5 we have the positive fruits of the Spirit which are contrary to the carnal, jealous or envious nature.

In this continued context of the the Spirit of Christ filling a 'body' we have in chapter 5.

And in this context, we have the example of a 'husband' and woman, both of the true body of Christ who's sins have been erased devoted to each other.Problems sometimes arise though when those who are not truly born of the Spirit of God or inhabited with his filling nor know his Love in the Spirit are considered part of the body due to their church membership or attendance or religious appearance. There is little more wicked than these situations of broken trust against the Spirit of truth & Love which HE imparts. This wickedness is especially applicable if the person(s) are 'teachers' or even family members in good standing in their "church".

You have accurately noted that if these verses such as vs 22 are read and understood as instruction and law for the church and others to operate under as self-justification; they can and have been misapplied and have created as more damage than good.

I read them as a very common example and application, in his general instructions of true members of his body having been filled by and operating in the Spirit to interact with one another.

Paul was speaking from the traditions and customs of the timeI understand how you have that perspective if you take vs 22 out of it's context to establish a code of legalized adherance. But that system is dead and gone. Paul is not writing New Law which create "sin" if not obeyed. He is writing encouragement and instruction based on the new foundation of the fullness of God and His Spriit of Love and truth residing within those who are justified freely against personal iniquity and given eternal life through the Spirit of Life in Christ.

Paul was speaking from the desire to see people grow into the unity of the Spirit of Love during the context of his explanation of people of Christ being his present representation and filling of God..."all in all".

I expect I've explained this about the best I can as far as how I think it is to be understood in the context of the Spirit of Love and Life and the filling of His Spirit.

Take care n God bless.

Hi Endtimes,

I understand the context from which it was written, and Paul's desire to see growth in those he was speaking to, but it seems that more harm has been done to the cause of women then good....they had it hard enough as it was. It would have been far better for Paul to have only preached "love one another" like Jesus, and John than to introduce a concept that so easily slipped into men abusing women.

Blessings,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper

03-03-2011, 12:51 AM

Whether we understand it or not, Jesus did confirm that He is the OT God.

Bob May

03-03-2011, 11:02 AM

Craig.Paardekooper

03-03-2011, 01:45 PM

Background

Prior to the Flood of Noah, the Sons of God intermingled with the daughters of men and had giant offspring by them, apparently. God imprisoned these bad angels and sent the Flood to destroy their giant offspring ........However some survived the Flood

We know they survived because after the Flood the Bible tells us about whole cities of giants in the Land of Canaan.

Now, I know that many people accuse God of genocide, because He commanded His Chosen people to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan.

However, perhaps He ordered this because the Canaanites were descendents of the Nephilim.

God had failed to wipe out all the giants with the Flood, so after the Flood He raised up an army of people to finish the job. All the cities that God identifies in Canaan are descendents of the Nephilim.

This was a battle between the children of God (light) and the children of darkness (the fallen angels)

I know this all sounds crazy - like I am some lunatic spouting about such far out things - but from a pre-diluvian perspective it makes sense. Rather than send a second Flood to kill off the remaining giants, God raised up an army.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-03-2011, 07:40 PM

I don't have time to read all of this thread right now. I have to get ready for work. but I'll be back.
Just a few of my ideas on the subject.

Moses wrote the Law.
Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. THAT IS NOT OBVIOUS.

If something doesn't make sense,..LOOK DEEPER.

If we are not seeing in the stories and laws in the O.T. details about our new relationship with Jesus or about Jesus himself, we are reading it wrong.
If it doesn't reflect the character of a Loving, Gracious, Caring Father God, we are reading it wrong.

Re 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

He made all things new. That includes the Old Covenant.
It does not mean what it used to mean once you get an awareness of what Grace is.
Hey there Bob,

I certainly understand the sentiment of your post, but I don't see how it could be true. I cannot imagine how the laws and commandments mentioned earlier in this thread could be "reinterpreted" to represent "the character of a Loving, Gracious, Caring Father God." For example, the command to kill all the boys and women that were not virgins, and keep only the virgin girls.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-03-2011, 07:44 PM

God gave the Law
The Law is immoral by our standards
Therefore God is immoral by our standards

Well, the same laws existed in other nations at the time, so all God did was SANCTION these laws as appropriate for the Hebrews. So, ineffect all God was saying was "I command you to follow the same laws that you have been following already."

That's not how the Bible presents the Torah. It is presented as a direct revelation from God, and that's what conservative Jews and Christians have always believed.

It is a bit strange that God would introduce all the superstitious rituals and blood sacrifices, eg having to sacfifice an animal everytime a woman has a menstrual period. It seems obvious that an all-knowing God simply allowed them to keep many of their existing religious practices. The only innovation seems to have been monotheism, and strict separation from surrounding nations.
It is odd ... that the seemingly barbaric blood sacrifices play such a central role in the NT understanding of Christ.

On the one hand, it seems profoundly significant. On the other, barbaric and ignorant.

I'm at a very strange place in my understanding of Scripture!

Bob May

03-03-2011, 11:18 PM

Hey there Bob,

I certainly understand the sentiment of your post, but I don't see how it could be true. I cannot imagine how the laws and commandments mentioned earlier in this thread could be "reinterpreted" to represent "the character of a Loving, Gracious, Caring Father God." For example, the command to kill all the boys and women that were not virgins, and keep only the virgin girls.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard, Again I'm not done reading all of the posts, but I'm getting the idea.

"The treatment of women as the property of men is but one of the more obvious. But there are other problems, such as the whole "eye for an eye" thing which is a horrible law that does not seem "moral" to me. I see nothing good about destroying the eyes or teeth of people as punishment."
Richard

I think that law has to do with the sacrifice at the cross. It was a trade.
His opened eyes for our blind eyes, Tooth is spirit he exchanged his Holy Spirit for ours, and exchanged his life for ours.

Like I said we have to look deeper to understand the law. It changed at the cross, or rather we changed. We got his eyes. Now we have to learn how to use them. That goes for our ears too.

Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mr 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Jesus is telling them he is giving them "the mystery to the kingdom of God." Then he implies that this knowledge will enable them to "know all parables."
Then he gives them five or six definitions to the words in his parable/allegory of the sower.

Now wait a minute. Those few new definitions are not enough to decode even all of His parables let alone to "know all parables."

No, the Mystery he is giving them is ALLEGORY itself. That is the tool that is necessary to understanding "All Parables", including the Law which is the first five books of the Bible.

Paul was a master at it.
He said that two woman were the two covenants and also two mountains. And also two cities.

Ga 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Ga 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Ga 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Ga 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Ga 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Ga 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

He also said an ox was a man that builds churches and preaches the gospel.

1co 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
1co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

1co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

1co 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Like I said we are reading it wrong. If it doesn't reflect the grace of God somethings wrong with us. We have not figured out what the words mean yet.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-03-2011, 11:29 PM

I think that law has to do with the sacrifice at the cross. It was a trade.
His opened eyes for our blind ones eyes, Tooth is spirit he exchanged his Holy spirit for ours, and his life for ours.

Like I said we have to look deeper to understand the law. It changed at the cross, or rather we changed. We got his eyes. Now how to use them.

Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mr 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Jesus is telling them he is giving them the mystery to the kingdom of God." Then he implies that this knowledge will enable them to "know all parables."
Then he gives them five or six definitions to the words in his parable/allegory of the sower.

Now wait a minute. Those few new definitions are not enough to decode even all of His parables let alone to "know all parables."

No, the Mystery he is giving them is ALLEGORY itself. That is the tool that is necessary to understanding "All Parables", including the Law which is the first five books of the Bible.
Well, OK ... but from this perspective, it seems that there is no more "objective meaning" to the Bible. If it is all pure allegory, then each person is "on their own" to interpret things as they see fit. What purpose then is the Bible? How is it different than any other book? We can't say that its message is "special" if everyone who reads it comes up with a different message!

Richard Amiel McGough

03-03-2011, 11:31 PM

Like I said we are reading it wrong. If it doesn't reflect the grace of God somethings wrong with us. We have not figured out what the words mean yet.
Why do you believe that? How do you know it is true? Where did you learn this teaching? Is it taught in the Bible?

Bob May

03-03-2011, 11:41 PM

Well, OK ... but from this perspective, it seems that there is no more "objective meaning" to the Bible. If it is all pure allegory, then each person is "on their own" to interpret things as they see fit. What purpose then is the Bible? How is it different than any other book? We can't say that its message is "special" if everyone who reads it comes up with a different message!

If everyone was reading it differently then we are still reading it wrong.
Allegory is determined by the author. Or I should say the true meanings behind the symbolism used is determined by the author.
Those meanings are well layed out in the Bible Wheel book. They are self confirming.
Jesus promised to send the Spirit which would teach us all things and bring all things to our remembrance,.. "whatsoever I have told you."

And all people are already interpreting things as they see fit. Even without allegory.
That's the problem.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-04-2011, 12:04 AM

If everyone was reading it differently then we are still reading it wrong.
Allegory is determined by the author. Or I should say the true meanings behind the symbolism used is determined by the author.
Those meanings are well layed out in the Bible Wheel book. They are self confirming.
Jesus promised to send the Spirit which would teach us all things and bring all things to our remembrance,.. "whatsoever I have told you."

And all people are already interpreting things as they see fit. Even without allegory.
That's the problem.
Those are good points.

That's pretty much how I have seen it. The Bible "accomplishes" the will of it's "sender" or "author" but it's not anything like what most readers think.

I'm still trying to figure it out now, as I recover from the fundamentalist interpretation that I fell into some years ago. By looking at history, it seems that the Bible is a kind of "formative agent" that has played an instrumental role in the development of western civilization, which now dominates the world (e.g. science, technology). And there may be a much greater "purpose" yet to be revealed, but I can't speak of what that might be with any confidence.

Thanks for your insights. They are very helpful.

Bob May

03-04-2011, 12:09 AM

Why do you believe that? How do you know it is true? Where did you learn this teaching? Is it taught in the Bible?

1.Because it makes the most sense. The alternatives are that God is bloodthirsty and irrational and wrote a book that does not reflect his true nature. I won't accept that.

2.I have always approached the Bible with the thought that, "I don't understand this." It leaves me open for understanding it.

3.I went to a church that looked into allegorical meaning of the stories based on Hebrew meaning of words. Nowhere near as deep or proficient as you are at it. For some reason we started to go more and more into the law side of things.
I got out of that way of thinking and that church by reading the bible and looking for the verses that seemed to be telling me I was under grace instead of under the law. Even though others were telling me just the opposite.
What I found was that a lot of the verses that were being used to keep me condemned and under the law actually could be read completely opposite of what I had been taught.

"Study to show thyself approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.."
With a mind that is under the law it says you aren't studying enough and God does not approve of you.
If you are under Grace it says everything you read will confirm that you are already approved. It is telling you the reason for studying.

4. Yes it is taught in the bible. "These things are allegory." God is love.

Here's a good one;So 2:9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, showing himself through the lattice.

I used to read that as Jesus was hiding himself but it's just the opposite. He is "showing himself."

Craig.Paardekooper

03-04-2011, 04:23 AM

Hi RAM,

with regards to the virgins being spared, God originally commanded them to not leave anyone alive atall. Moses made a concession with his men to leave the virgins alive.

God's plan was complete annihilation

Craig.Paardekooper

03-04-2011, 04:54 AM

It would be interesting to look at Leviticus and see how it may be a symbol for the grace of God

Bob May

03-04-2011, 07:49 AM

Those are good points.

That's pretty much how I have seen it. The Bible "accomplishes" the will of it's "sender" or "author" but it's not anything like what most readers think.

I'm still trying to figure it out now, as I recover from the fundamentalist interpretation that I fell into some years ago. By looking at history, it seems that the Bible is a kind of "formative agent" that has played an instrumental role in the development of western civilization, which now dominates the world (e.g. science, technology). And there may be a much greater "purpose" yet to be revealed, but I can't speak of what that might be with any confidence.

Thanks for your insights. They are very helpful.

You helped me put some things together too.
I began reading the bible allegoricallly from the start. That is the way I was taught.

Father, mother, son
Seed, earth, plant
Thought,emotion, idea

All of the symbolism is held together by the story. The story is the Pattern that is invisible. The symbols are visible.

I have come to the conclusion lately that the pattern is what we should be looking for. We get enough "true" symbols in store in our subconscious mind and we recognise a pattern that fits. Then bingo, we have an idea. Some of those ideas form groups and they are called Israelites ( thoughts that have power with God and man) some are Edomites (carnal thoughts).

Whole philosophies and false religions can be built around these mixed thoughts.

So I was thinking about our conversation. You asked how do I know these things are true? We don't at first.

We let the wheat and tares grow up together. But when the harvest comes, "messages" or "messengers" from the Sower Jesus come and separate the tares from the wheat and destroy the tares. These messengers are in the form of letters. Living principles.

So there is a pattern.

Here is another. It always bugged me that whenever Jesus was asked or told what the Kingdom of God or heaven was, he seemed to evade the issue.

Mr 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mr 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. Mr 4:28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

He was not evading the issue. He was telling us how it works so that we would recognse it when it began to happen to us. And not reject it.
It is Revelation. And there are different levels of it 30, 60, 100 fold it says in another place.

The Spirit (seed) beareth witness with our spirit (earth) that we are the sons of God (harvest)

False notions like stoning a virgin are the result of taking things at face value instead of waiting for the meaning of the verse of law to reveal itself.
Rape might be just that. Wrong thinking multiplying in our beliefs.
Bashing a child's head in could be destroying a thought before it is fully grown. (Whether that is a spirtual thought being destroyed by a carnal one or visa versa.)

The Revelation of the Word of God is what the body of Christ is made of.

Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (Small stones or revelations) and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (Allegory) and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (what thoughts we hold onto or what thoughts we reject concerning our ideas of God and our relationship with Him.)

The rock that Jesus is talking of here is the Revelation that Peter had here not Peter himself.

kathryn

03-04-2011, 08:46 AM

Rose

03-04-2011, 09:55 AM

Why all this blood and madness? Maybe it had to be this way until the 70 generations of punishment were completed.

Animal sacrifice is horrible, but that was part of the punishment. To rub our faces in the horrible fact that this is the result of sin. 70 generations of sacrifice - blood everywhere.

These were the dark ages. The coming of Jesus spelled the coming of light and forgiveness - and no more animal sacrifice.

40 years after the Mosaic covenant, the Israelites entered the Promised Land to destroy the remains of the Nephilim
40 years after Jesus's covenant, the Israelites were removed from the Promised Land, and the angels who had given birth to the Nephilim were judged.

Hi Craig,

Why all this blood and madness? From my studies it seems the answer to that question is the same as many of the other horrible things we find in the Bible....and that is: blood sacrifice was a common requirement for the appeasement of a god, whether it be human or animal amongst many of the pagan cultures.

The truth of the matter is that most all the rituals and ideas the Jews were practicing came in some form from the cultures around them, and had been in practice for centuries before them....whether it be blood sacrifice, resurrection, demons and angels, creation, the flood, virgin birth, hell, judgment, only begotten son, god demanding worship or god taking vengeance....and the list goes on.....

So, is the Bible just a book that records the practices of one race of people through time? And if so, what is its purpose, and why does it show design?

One idea is that maybe the design manifest in the Bible Wheel displays underlying archetypal principles innate to man, and those play a role in our moral development.

Blessings,
Rose

Bob May

03-04-2011, 10:10 AM

Excellent post, Bob...thanks. Paul says the Law is "spiritual" (Rm. 7:14) ...Jesus used the Law to reveal Himself to His disciples after the resurrection. Christianity has, by and large, thrown it out the window, thinking it no longer has any application. Some of the most profound nuggets of revelation can be found within the Law of Moses.
I liked your illustration of the wheat and tares. This "ripening" principle is found throughout scripture and an important theme in our studies.

Thank you Kathryn,
Some thing else occured to me while trying to nap. I didn't get much sleep last night.
The law was made to paint us into a corner. Whether the entire 613 laws or the 10 commandments. They bring us to the end of ourselves. To the realisation of the need for a Savior.
The 10 commandments are pretty easy to follow. At least "apparently", until you get to the 10th Thou shalt not Covet. Why? Because it has to do with the mind. If we are completely honest with ourselves we at some point realise we are not following it.
Jesus accused the religious leaders of straining at a gnat and following a camel and of not giving any heed to the weightier matters such as mercy.
These are the hidden things. Another example of a hidden thing is when Jesus said if we lust we have already commited adultery, and if we hate our brother without cause, we are guilty of murder.
To water down the law is to take away it's power to bring us to the end of ourselves.

Jesus was approached by an angry crowd wanting to see what he had to say about stoning an adulteress.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

First off Jesus by his own body language is illustrating the difference between the letter and spirit of the law by writing letters on the ground, then standing up and speaking, then writing letters on the ground again.

Secondly,...At least these guys were honest with themselves. They knew they had sinned and as Paul and the law said if you break one law, you are guilty of all.

Now apply that to the Old Testament sacrifices.

If they were following the law, and if they were honest with themselves, they never would have been doing the sacrifices because the priests would not have been worthy to offer the sacrifices and the high priest would never have entered into the Holy of Holies once a year.

Hebrews 9
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

Heb 9:7 alone once every year, not without blood, whichBut into the second went the high priest he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

So the high priest with a guilty conscience went into the Holy of Holies every year to do an atonement for himself and the people.
If he was as honest with himself as the guys who wanted to stone the adultress He Would Not Have Gone In.

In my old church we used to get preached to us "The law shall lead you to Christ."
It does. Not because you can follow it, but because you cannot.

Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Rose

03-04-2011, 01:44 PM

Here is a page I posted before.

God On Trial (http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/god_on_trial.htm)

Hi Craig,

If I was the Judge presiding over the "God on Trail" case, I'm afraid my verdict would be: Guilty as charged of mass murder and genocide! :eek:

Rose

CWH

03-04-2011, 09:10 PM

Hi Craig,

If I was the Judge presiding over the "God on Trail" case, I'm afraid my verdict would be: Guilty as charged of mass murder and genocide! :eek:

Rose

If You were the Judge presiding over the "God on Trail" case, I'm afraid your verdict would be: Guilty as charged of mass murder and genocide! But your verdict will be over-turned by Jesus and You will be charged for Mis-Judgement of which there is no pardon unless You repented of your verdict.:)

And the lesson we can learn is : Do Not Judge or You will be judged. God obviously know what He is doing and what He has done is right.

Many Blessings.

kathryn

03-04-2011, 10:36 PM

Bob May

03-05-2011, 06:23 AM

Bob:
So the high priest with a guilty conscience went into the Holy of Holies every year to do an atonement for himself and the people.
If he was as honest with himself as the guys who wanted to stone the adultress He Would Not Have Gone In.

Hi Bob...I enjoyed your comments on the Law and agree but I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The high priest was ordained by the Law to enter the Holies to make an atonement for himself (and the people), was he not?

Hi Kathryn,
Yes, he was. But he and the rest of the priesthood were also required to go through all kinds of cleansing rituals which Paul points out didn't clean anything as pertaining to the conscience.
Would you want someone like Annas or Caiaphas being your "go between."
Your mouth piece standing between you and your God?

Jesus talked about cleansing the outside of the cup and leaving the inside filthy. It is a matter of looking at appearances versus looking more deeply into things. A person who follows the letter of the law only is not following the law.

Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the WEIGHTIER matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

De 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

De 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

De 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

So Jesus here is saying that they were omitting the weightier matters of the law. One of them is Judgement and one is mercy. Not condemning the Adulteress. Because he was not omitting a part of the law. The weightier matters.
If they would have stoned her (which the law required) they would have been breaking the law because of the omission. Either way they had to break the law. Either the "letter or spirit.""The appearance or the actual purpose" of the law.
Jesus by not condemning her

In the second example Joseph did not want to follow the law and stone Mary. It points out that he was a "just man."
Apparently Mary was with child by another man.
So he did not want to follow the law. The law required that Mary be publicly stoned. He ended up not stoning her because an angel told him the child was by the Holy Ghost, but my point is Joseph did not want to follw the law because being a "just man" he knew something was wrong with the "letter" of the law. It was not "just."
So if he would have had her stoned he would have broken the weightier matter of the law. If he didn't, he would have broken the letter.

Jesus seems to indicate that when faced with this choice you should choose to keep the weightier matters of judgement and mercy. Judgement in this case would not be punishment but balance and fairness. He did not condemn the adulteress.

Back to the High priest. He was not clean (in his conscience) and he was entering the Holy of Holies. He did all of the washings required of him but he was not accomplishing the spirit or reason for those washings.

Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

The high priest had to enter to establish the pattern (the appearance for the real Atonement to come) but knew he was breaking the law not being clean in conscience. The high priest did not know he was playing a part in a shadow play.
All he knew was that he was not worthy.

That is IF he was honest with himself. Most people just go through the motions,...paint by numbers and don't give the deeper, weightier things a second thought.

Jesus came to force us to do that. To see past the "figures" to the "true."
Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and others did that and found Grace and Favor in God's eyes.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 10:08 AM

God obviously know what He is doing and what He has done is right.

Hey there Cheow,

I think there is a problem with your answer. It appears that you are saying that whatever God does is "good" no matter how "bad" it really is. Doesn't this destroy the meaning of "good" when applied to God?

For example, God ordered the murder of innocent babies. Does that mean it is "right" to "order the murder of innocent babies"?

It seems like you are saying that any action performed by God is automatically good, even if it would be purely evil if done by anyone else. Doesn't that destroy the meaning of "good" relative to God?

Here's what I mean. By your definition, it would "good" if God tortured little babies for fun, because anything God does is good, no matter how bad it really is!

Do you see why this causes a problem?

All the best.

kathryn

03-05-2011, 10:42 AM

Bob: Hi Kathryn,
Yes, he was. But he and the rest of the priesthood were also required to go through all kinds of cleansing rituals which Paul points out didn't clean anything as pertaining to the conscience.
Would you want someone like Annas or Caiaphas being your "go between."
Your mouth piece standing between you and your God?

Hi Bob...I hear what you saying...and no, I wouldn't want Annas or Caiaphas being my go between. Bear with me...this is a new thought and I'm still trying to process it. It's interesting, because it's making me try to crawl into the mind of the High Priest. What do you suppose his mindset was?

kathryn

03-05-2011, 10:55 AM

CWH

03-05-2011, 11:04 AM

Hey there Cheow,

I think there is a problem with your answer. It appears that you are saying that whatever God does is "good" no matter how "bad" it really is. Doesn't this destroy the meaning of "good" when applied to God?

For example, God ordered the murder of innocent babies. Does that mean it is "right" to "order the murder of innocent babies"?

It seems like you are saying that any action performed by God is automatically good, even if it would be purely evil if done by anyone else. Doesn't that destroy the meaning of "good" relative to God?

Here's what I mean. By your definition, it would "good" if God tortured little babies for fun, because anything God does is good, no matter how bad it really is!

Do you see why this causes a problem?

All the best.

Are you saying then God is bad and evil because He ordered the killing of babies and so we should give up our Christian faith? I am beginning to wonder what is the motive of this thread.

I used to watch documentary films and in one documentary film, I saw a male lion who took over another lion's tribe killing all the lion's cubs of the previous head male lion. This is so that the female lions will go into heat again and the new head lion would then be able to father his own cubs. The merciless killings of all the cubs of the previous head lion seems very cruel but it is a necessary step to ensure the survival of the new head lion's generations. In another documentary film, I saw hyenas killing a young baby boar tearing it to pieces alive. Now all these are deemed bad and cruel in human terms but it is necessary for the predator's survival. We all know that these animals are all God's creation and such killing behaviors were already "programmed" into the animals by God.

What I am saying here is what looks cruel and bad in the killing of animals is actually good for the survival of the species which we call ecology. Don't we humans kill young chickens, bulls, pigs for food? Cruel isn't it yet it is necessary. Some of us would approve mercy killings of their pets if they are injured or ill beyond recovery. Likewise, I believe the killings of babies as ordered by God may be beneficial; we just do not know the real reasons behind it.

Many Blessings.

kathryn

03-05-2011, 11:40 AM

Hi CWH...I do agree with you that there is so much we don't understand and therefore can't judge (discern). The fall of man must have brought chaos in dimensions we've yet to discover. What it takes to turn it around into complete and full redemption I don't think can be known in our finite minds, as they exist presently. I couldn't give up my faith if I tried. I've seen His Hand too many times in my life...and I certainly haven't been immune to hardship. However...I appreciate the freedom to explore these questions, because they always bring me to a higher truth...(although it can take a loooooooooooooooong time) Don't be too concerned about it all. We do have to be able to prove the reason for our Hope and you have to admit this is a great place to do it:p
Blessing Cheow...you are a Dear.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 12:26 PM

Are you saying then God is bad and evil because He ordered the killing of babies and so we should give up our Christian faith? I am beginning to wonder what is the motive of this thread.

I used to watch documentary films and in one documentary film, I saw a male lion who took over another lion's tribe killing all the lion's cubs of the previous head male lion. This is so that the female lions will go into heat again and the new head lion would then be able to father his own cubs. The merciless killings of all the cubs of the previous head lion seems very cruel but it is a necessary step to ensure the survival of the new head lion's generations. In another documentary film, I saw hyenas killing a young baby boar tearing it to pieces alive. Now all these are deemed bad and cruel in human terms but it is necessary for the predator's survival. We all know that these animals are all God's creation and such killing behaviors were already "programmed" into the animals by God.

What I am saying here is what looks cruel and bad in the killing of animals is actually good for the survival of the species which we call ecology. Don't we humans kill young chickens, bulls, pigs for food? Cruel isn't it yet it is necessary. Some of us would approve mercy killings of their pets if they are injured or ill beyond recovery. Likewise, I believe the killings of babies as ordered by God may be beneficial; we just do not know the real reasons behind it.

Many Blessings.
Hey there Cheow,

The "motive" of this thread is to speak truth about what the Bible really teaches. What if God put those verses in the Bible to test us, to separate between those who really believe in what is right and good from those who are only mindless religious robots who pervert truth in service of their religious cult?

I fear that most who profess faith in God and the Bible may really be brainwashed cult members who don't know what they believe. Did God design the Bible to separate the wheat of authentic believers from the chaff of the brainwashed cult members? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But now we have no option but to search out the answer because now we are looking at what the Bible really teaches about "God" and we see that a lot of it appears to be immoral, wicked, and evil. Here are a few examples:

1) The command to kill entire communities, including babies.

2) The command to kill everyone except the virgin women and girls.

3) The "eye for an eye" law. Is it a good law? It is in the Bible.

4) God killed 70,000 Israelites because David "sinned" by counting the number of his troops. (1 Chr 21:14)

5) God killed David's innocent child because of his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, while letting David go free when the Law said he should be stoned to death.

6) The teaching of Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell. What good could come from that? Is it not purely evil to torment souls for eternity?

Now your example of nature "red in tooth and claw" does nothing to exonerate God. On the contrary, it is one of the most common objections to the idea that there is a moral God who designed the world.

So my purpose is very simple. I would like for us to free our minds from what we are "supposed to believe" and open our eyes to see the reality of what is really written.

And there is a much bigger problem we must all confront. We are taught that God is a Person analogous to humans with a will who watches over the world. This means that all natural disasters (which are appropriately labeled "Acts of God") are the direct responsibility of God. The 250,000 Hatians, who were mostly Christian, were killed by a direct act of God. He could have warned them if that were His desire, and any MORAL AGENT would be morally responsible to do so if it was within the power of that MORAL AGENT.

So how are we really supposed to understand all this? That is the motive of this thread.

All the best,

Richard

kathryn

03-05-2011, 01:10 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 01:56 PM

Excellent post Richard. Thank you. I just wanted to add that we can only be witnesses to what we see and hear. Understanding that releases us from the need to have to defend God. If He wants us to gain understanding...it's His responsibility, not ours. We just have to remain willing to stay open and keep searching
Well stated! The sense that we need to "defend God" or "defend the Bible" should be a red flag indicating that we've misunderstood something quite fundamental.

Bob May

03-05-2011, 01:58 PM

Rose

03-05-2011, 02:05 PM

If You were the Judge presiding over the "God on Trail" case, I'm afraid your verdict would be: Guilty as charged of mass murder and genocide! But your verdict will be over-turned by Jesus and You will be charged for Mis-Judgement of which there is no pardon unless You repented of your verdict.:)

And the lesson we can learn is : Do Not Judge or You will be judged. God obviously knows what He is doing and what He has done is right.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

The BIG question I would ask you is: How do you know what's recorded in the Bible is actually God's commands, or just some myth made up by man?

Rose

kathryn

03-05-2011, 02:34 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 02:57 PM

Hi RAM,

I just looked at that instance were God killed 70,000 Israelites because David took a census. Seems very strange.

On face value - with God giving the three choices to David, it is very difficult to come to any conclusion other than that God is acting outside of any moral constraint - atleast anything that we can understand by ethics.

And David is really apologetic, as if taking a census were a terrible thing. And even if taking a census were terrible, the people who died were innocent. It was David's fault not theirs.

At face value, the Biblical God is shown to be irrational because there is nothing wrong with taking a census, and unjust because innocent people paid the price.

I have looked at several reviews of this passage on line, and all the Christians agree that it is unjust.
Fascinating observations Craig. I think we should dig in a little deeper. I am glad you are looking at traditional Christian responses, but I am surprised they all agree that it is "unjust." It seems impossible that a traditional Christian response would conclude that God is unjust.

The three choices were patterned on the number 3 (1 Chr 21:12):

three years' famine;
three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

How very strange! Not one of the options were aimed at punishing David, the supposedly guilty party. But worse ... GOD KILLED 70,000 MEN who had wives and children over the "crime" of the King who merely counted his men? What about the widows and the children that God made fatherless? How does this compare with all the verses that say things like "Thou art the helper of the fatherless" (Psalm 10:14)? This seems just plain NUTS.

And there are yet more problems with this passage. The text itself seems ambiguous if it was God or the Devil who provoked David to sin in the first place!
1 Chr 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2 Sam 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
Look at the red words:
Satan/The Lord ... against Israel ... provoked/moved David ... number Israel
How are we supposed to understand this? What is the relation between "Satan" and "The Lord" in these two parallel passages? Talk about "amplifying" the problem of God's morality! Here we see he is conflated with Satan himself! If we take the highest view of Scripture, and assume that these two verses are exactly as God designed them and that they are teaching some divine truth, what, pray tell, is the truth being taught????

It looks like we are gonna be busy for a while figuring this all out ...

All the best,

Richard

kathryn

03-05-2011, 03:14 PM

Just leaving the moral issues aside for a moment...and looking strictly at what the typology might suggest. David is a type of Christ , and as a type of Christ...can only do what he sees the Father doing, for they are in perfect unity. If God's will is always motivated by His Love... obedience is our safety, our salvation, etc. A Loving Father desires ALL good things for His children. Scripture says that we are one body, and when one hurts, all of us hurt. I do believe we can take that illustration literally and science is beginning to understand this principle. David was being shown (and us through the typology) how his actions not only affect him, but all those around him as well. I'm sure he suffered greatly when he understood this.
We are one body and when one hurts all of us hurt. When you begin to really grasp this, your prayers for those hurting steps up a notch....simply because you realize that until their hurting ends...yours is still ongoing. Of course we progress past this self business ...but you can see how the full revelation of our connectedness to one another begins to effect change.(imho, that is:D)

Craig.Paardekooper

03-05-2011, 03:16 PM

kathryn

03-05-2011, 04:58 PM

I beg to differ Craig. I don't believe it is in God's heart to want to kill anyone. He has bound Himself to His own Law...and that's a good thing because it gives us the authority as His children, in the Divine Court (through what Jesus accomplished on the cross for us ) to bind (or declare unlawful) everything that contradicts our salvation. By binding Himself to His own Law (which is an expression of His character , purposes and will) He has obligated Himself to redeem us and creation. (ALL mankind)

In one of the Laws of redemption (and this is just a small example and not one of the more obvious ones) in Ex.21.32:it says that if a man digs a pit (abyss) and doesn't take proper safety precautions (ie..placing a covering over it) and his neighbours ox falls into it, the owner of the pit (God owns His own creation) must make restitution to his neighbor
.
Adam and Eve were placed in the midst of a garden with a tree bearing fruit that would kill them, and a serpent disguised to tempt them. Not only that..they had no reasoning ability to understand good and evil. God dug the pit and Adam and Eve fell into it. When you begin to read these Laws from this perspective...you begin to see why David said he delighted in His Law.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 05:29 PM

Here is what I think.

God wanted to punish the Israelites anyway, really regardless of what David did.

God provoked David (hardened his heart) so He could provide a demonstration of His power when He smote the Israelites.

It is almost the same pattern with Pharoah. God/Satan hardens Pharoah's heart. Pharoah wont let the Israelites leave, so God smites PHaroah's people

Here we have almost the same formula. God/Satan hardens David. David does a census, so God smites the Israelites.

Basically, God wanted to smite the Israelites anyway.

The sin of the Israelites was probably pride. Counting the army suggests that David felt he nolonger needed God - that he could manage with his own army now. Being King and conqueror must have made David feel just pride and self reliance. All the Israelites were punished because they had all started to feel this way. This was the pinnacle of Jewish Kingdom.

It must be the case that conquerors often become "godless" in their attitudes. In the UK the success of the industrial Revolution gave birth to materialism and godlessness. Great conquerors often see themselves as god, or as beyond the need for the divine.
I don't see any reason to think God "hardened" David's heart. The word used is Strong's 5496:
סות cuwth {sooth}
Meaning: 1) to incite, allure, instigate, entice 1a) (Hiphil) 1a1) to incite (to a request) 1a2) to allure, lure 1a3) to instigate (bad sense)
This word is never used in the context of "hardening" a heart. And more interesting, it is used in connection with Satan again in the account of Job, where Satan incites God rather than David this time:
Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst (sooth) me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Say what? SATAN "MOVED" GOD??? To destroy Job "without cause"???

God is supposed to be "unmovable" by any creature. And even more confusing: One verse says God moved David to sin. Another says it was Satan who moved David to sin. And now it says that Satan moved God to "destroy" Job "without cause" which certainly would be a sin if any other "Moral Agent" did such a thing!

Also, there is no explanation why it was a "sin" for David to count his troops. Indeed, God ordered Moses to conduct a census in the first chapter of Numbers, and specifically commanded that he count the number "able to go forth to war" (Num 1:2-3).

So we don't even know why it was a sin, let alone a sin so severe as to justify God's slaughter of 70,000 men of Israel who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime! Let alone the fact that God's action made 70,000 women into widows, and robbed their children, which probably numbered around 300,000, of their fathers. Given these facts, it is extremely disturbing to read the ridiculous "explanation" provided by standard Christian apologists such as Gleason Archer in his "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties." He claims that David had become too self-reliant, too much of a "hardhearted realist" and so God "decided it was time for David to be brought to his knees once more and to be cast on the grace of God through a time of soul searching trial" (pg 187). Say what? :eek: First David did nothing that is forbidden in Scripture, and second, what about the 70,000 HUMAN BEINGS THAT GOD SLAUGHTERED???? Where is the "grace of God" for them and their wives and children? How is it possible that such a crap explanation could be published?

Apologetic books like "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" reveal that the entire evangelical/fundamentalist mindset is totally corrupt They are not able to even see anything that is actually said in the book they revere as the "Word of God." I cannot think of anything more ironic.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 05:59 PM

I beg to differ Craig. I don't believe it is in God's heart to want to kill anyone. He has bound Himself to His own Law...and that's a good thing because it gives us the authority as His children, in the Divine Court (through what Jesus accomplished on the cross for us ) to bind (or declare unlawful) everything that contradicts our salvation. By binding Himself to His own Law (which is an expression of His character , purposes and will) He has obligated Himself to redeem us and creation. (ALL mankind)

Hey there Kathryn,

I've heard many Christians teach that God has "bound himself" by his own law, but I am not aware of any verse that teaches that. Could you enlighten me on this point?

Also, your example seems to be interpreting the "law" in a very allegorical sense. There was no literal "pit" in the garden. Sure, the "intent" of that law can be applied, but then again, we could just as well use our own God-given reason to come to the same conclusion.

And there seems to be a rather obvious logical inconsistency with your concept. How can God bind himself to the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? God does not have himself as a God. Many laws are like this. For example, the 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not murder." But God kills many without any morally legitimate reason, such as the 70,000 that he slaughtered after David took a census.

So if your idea is true, it seems we have a huge problem. Many of God's actions are clear violations of His Law, by which I mean, if any other person did them, they would be convicted as violators. How then can you say that God has bound himself by his law?

All the best,

Richard

Bob May

03-05-2011, 06:24 PM

Sorry Bob...I should have clarified that a bit. I meant, what do you think his understanding of Atonement was? Do you think he really understood about his conscience? If so...why would Jesus have opened the subject further about the Law...stating that you've committed adultery if you've lusted in your heart? (if they already understood it)

Here is the heart of the matter.
I think Jesus was showing the impossiblility of keeping the law.

If a person was justified in their own mind and thought they were keeping the law Jesus brought the law to the level of Mind. to show them they were "fudging."
Basically he was saying "You want the law well here it is and it is a lot harder to follow than your half-hearted attempts.

If a person was humble and realised they were not keeping the law or trying to figure out how to keep the law Jesus was gentle.

He was still teaching law, as the time to pour out grace was not here yet.
Though he did give a lot of hints as to what was coming with Grace.

Lu 12:24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

Sounds like a statement completely opposed to the law of Moses. "As you sow, so shall ye reap..."

It's deeper. It's above the law. It is "Grandfathered in" because the promises to Abraham were before the Mosaic law.

And those who professed to having kept the law Paul pointed out that they had never kept it.

Ro 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Ro 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

Ro 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

Ro 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

Jesus was doing what the 10th commandment does. Makes it impossible for us to fake righteousness to ourselves because it (thou shalt not covet) is invisible. It deals with our mind, not our actions.

If you lust in your heart you are guilty of adultery.
If angry at your brother your guilty of murder.
Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.

The high priest is not important. I was just saying he had a unclean conscience. He had to because the once a year Atonement didn't work the year before, or the year before that, or the year,..and so on back through all the years and all the high priests.

So it's real value was that it was a "shadow play" pointing to the real Atonement to come and which has now come.
Which brought the availability of Grace for all. Not just the few Patriarchs who found favor with God.

kathryn

03-05-2011, 06:40 PM

Bob May

03-05-2011, 06:47 PM

Bob:I think his mindset was "Holier than Thou",..other wise he could not have lived with himself. That is why I said if he was Honest with himself.But deep down would have been a different story.

I'm still having trouble with this Bob. I see it more as a case of ignorance rather than honesty. The very fact that God ordained Him, and he didn't need to be pulled dead, out of the Holy of Holies by the feet. (which were the purpose of the bells on his robe..to alert the congregation that he was no longer "standing")I think would make him confident that his cleansing rituals were enough. However...I'm not saying I'm correct. I am still pondering this.

How do you know none were pulled out by a rope?

But you are correct he was ordained and God uses the tools that he has at hand.

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

So there was a high priest with an unclean conscience doing an atonement for the congregation who came home from the ceremony with unclean consciences.
So the purpose of this shadowplay was to show that it did not work.

We cannot get clean by our own efforts. And after using up all of our effort year after year trying to get right with God, we hopefully turn to God and say I've failed, You do it.

kathryn

03-05-2011, 06:50 PM

Bob:
The high priest is not important. I was just saying he had a unclean conscience. He had to because the once a year Atonement didn't work the year before, or the year before that, or the year,..and so on back through all the years and all the high priests.

So it's real value was that it was a "shadow play" pointing to the real Atonement to come and which has now come.
Which brought the availability of Grace for all. Not just the few Patriarchs who found favor with God.

Hiya Bob...Yes...I agree with all you said in your post. The problem I was having was that you said "if he was honest with himself"...and my point was...I don't think mankind had had the bar raised high enough, in their understanding of the spiritual aspect of the Law at that point, to reason this. If you had just said..as you did above, that he had an unclean conscience, I would have agreed immediately. I do recognize the value of the "shadow play" in this teaching. Thanks Bob.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 06:54 PM

kathryn

03-05-2011, 06:54 PM

Bob: How do you know none were pulled out by a rope?"

I don't....but I would imagine it would have been for something pertaining to their cleansing laws, such as touching a dead body , rather than their conscience, that felled them.

Clifford

03-05-2011, 06:55 PM

Hey there Cheow,

I think there is a problem with your answer. It appears that you are saying that whatever God does is "good" no matter how "bad" it really is. Doesn't this destroy the meaning of "good" when applied to God?

For example, God ordered the murder of innocent babies. Does that mean it is "right" to "order the murder of innocent babies"?

It seems like you are saying that any action performed by God is automatically good, even if it would be purely evil if done by anyone else. Doesn't that destroy the meaning of "good" relative to God?

Here's what I mean. By your definition, it would "good" if God tortured little babies for fun, because anything God does is good, no matter how bad it really is!

Do you see why this causes a problem?

All the best.

Hey Richard,

Since God is the creator of life it is his right to take away life if he so chooses, even if it is innocent life. Since we as humans didn't create life we don't have the right to take innocent life.

I think Paul in Romans 9:20-24 answered similar type questions with a response that is appropriate to the discussion in this thread.

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.

I know you will probably think this is a copout, but in our finite human understanding we always can't figure out why God did what he did. God sees the whole picture. This is where faith comes in. We know that God is good based on the revelation of himself specifically through Jesus Christ so we must view all his actions through that basic foundational truth.

Reminds me of the story of Job where he and his three so called friends were trying to figure out why all those bad things were happening to Job. God never revealed to them the reasons but did rebuke them for their seasonings that were based on incomplete knowledge.

The LORD said to Job:

'Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!'

Then Job answered the LORD:

'I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.'

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

'Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

'Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

Job 40:1-8

Clifford

kathryn

03-05-2011, 06:59 PM

[I]Richard:
Also, your example seems to be interpreting the "law" in a very allegorical sense. There was no literal "pit" in the garden. Sure, the "intent" of that law can be applied, but then again, we could just as well use our own God-given reason to come to the same conclusion.
[/I

I'm sorry Richard. That's primarily how I come to understand things initially. I'm doing the best I can:)

kathryn

03-05-2011, 07:03 PM

And yes..I realize there was no literal pit in the garden. When you look at this (allegorically) as symbolizing the carnal mind (where it would seem Adam "fell" as it was first a concept they accepted (and then consumed) that went contrary to the mind and will of God) it does make sense.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 07:20 PM

Richard:
Also, your example seems to be interpreting the "law" in a very allegorical sense. There was no literal "pit" in the garden. Sure, the "intent" of that law can be applied, but then again, we could just as well use our own God-given reason to come to the same conclusion.

I'm sorry Richard. That's primarily how I come to understand things initially. I'm doing the best I can:)
No need to apologize my friend! I'm very much enjoying the conversation. I suspect we are going to find we have some strong agreements, but also some very strong disagreements. And that's just fine with me. I hope it doesn't bother you. No one has all the answers! :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 07:34 PM

Hey Richard,

Since God is the creator of life it is his right to take away life if he so chooses, even if it is innocent life. Since we as humans didn't create life we don't have the right to take innocent life.

Hey there Clifford,

Yes, that is an popular solution, but it is incoherent with the rest of Scripture because it would mean that God's actions are "outside" our moral understanding, and that would mean that we could never use any moral terms like "good" or "kind" or "just" in reference to God because they would have no meaning.

If God violates his own law and let's David off with no penalty for the double crime of adultery and murder, but then kills his innocent child, we have lost all sense of what it means for God to be "good" or "just" or even "law abiding."

This really is a sticky wicket.

I think Paul in Romans 9:20-24 answered similar type questions with a response that is appropriate to the discussion in this thread.

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory.

I know you will probably think this is a copout, but in our finite human understanding we always can't figure out why God did what he did. God sees the whole picture. This is where faith comes in. We know that God is good based on the revelation of himself specifically through Jesus Christ so we must view all his actions through that basic foundational truth.

Reminds me of the story of Job where he and his three so called friends were trying to figure out why all those bad things were happening to Job. God never revealed to them the reasons but did rebuke them for their seasonings that were based on incomplete knowledge.

The LORD said to Job:

“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”

Then Job answered the LORD:

“I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

“Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

“Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

Job 40:1-8

Clifford
No ... I wouldn't call it a "copout." It is the traditional Christian response. The similarity to Job is quite clear. And that's the problem. It's not really an answer at all! Basically, God says "Shut up you stupid mortal! Who are you to question your creator?" But this begs the question - should we believe the Bible is the word of the Creator if it speaks to us as if we were immoral for merely asking questions? It's like the Star Trek 5 movie I watched just yesterday. Spock's brother took over the Enterprise so he could cross the "Great Barrier" and find the planet where God lived. And when they arrived, the giant-headed creature pretending to be God said he needed the Enterprise to get off the planet. So Kirk said "What does God need with a star ship?" and the "god" refused to answer and when Kirk asked again, the "god" zapped him with lightening bolts from his eyes. Then McCoy stepped up and said "What kind of "god" attacks mere mortals for asking questions?" And he got zapped too! So Spock stepped up and said something logical and he got zapped too!

I think it was quite serendipitous that I happened to see that movie last night while channel surfing ...

Great chatting,

Richard

Clifford

03-05-2011, 08:48 PM

Hey there Clifford,

Yes, that is an popular solution, but it is incoherent with the rest of Scripture because it would mean that God's actions are "outside" our moral understanding, and that would mean that we could never use any moral terms like "good" or "kind" or "just" in reference to God because they would have no meaning.

If God violates his own law and let's David off with no penalty for the double crime of adultery and murder, but then kills his innocent child, we have lost all sense of what it means for God to be "good" or "just" or even "law abiding."

This really is a sticky wicket.

No ... I wouldn't call it a "copout." It is the traditional Christian response. The similarity to Job is quite clear. And that's the problem. It's not really an answer at all! Basically, God says "Shut up you stupid mortal! Who are you to question your creator?" But this begs the question - should we believe the Bible is the word of the Creator if it speaks to us as if we were immoral for merely asking questions? It's like the Star Trek 5 movie I watched just yesterday. Spock's brother took over the Enterprise so he could cross the "Great Barrier" and find the planet where God lived. And when they arrived, the giant-headed creature pretending to be God said he needed the Enterprise to get off the planet. So Kirk said "What does God need with a star ship?" and the "god" refused to answer and when Kirk asked again, the "god" zapped him with lightening bolts from his eyes. Then McCoy stepped up and said "What kind of "god" attacks mere mortals for asking questions?" And he got zapped too! So Spock stepped up and said something logical and he got zapped too!

I think it was quite serendipitous that I happened to see that movie last night while channel surfing ...

Great chatting,

Richard

Hey Richard,

Yes, that is an popular solution, but it is incoherent with the rest of Scripture because it would mean that God's actions are "outside" our moral understanding, and that would mean that we could never use any moral terms like "good" or "kind" or "just" in reference to God because they would have no meaning.

If God violates his own law and let's David off with no penalty for the double crime of adultery and murder, but then kills his innocent child, we have lost all sense of what it means for God to be "good" or "just" or even "law abiding."

This really is a sticky wicket.

But God might have a greater purpose then we know when he takes the life of innocent people. Just like would it be immoral if you let one innocent person die in order to save 100 people?

No ... I wouldn't call it a "copout." It is the traditional Christian response. The similarity to Job is quite clear. And that's the problem. It's not really an answer at all! Basically, God says "Shut up you stupid mortal! Who are you to question your creator?" But this begs the question - should we believe the Bible is the word of the Creator if it speaks to us as if we were immoral for merely asking questions?

God did not say they were "immoral" for asking questions, but for questioning his wisdom. Maybe God choose not to tell Job why because he would not be able to comprehend it. Bottom line in God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. That's where faith comes in. We will never be able to figure out all the ways and whys of an infinite God. Thats what the ancients were commended for in Hebrews 11. They obeyed God whether they figured out the whys or not.

Good conversation,

Clifford

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 09:18 PM

But God might have a greater purpose then we know when he takes the life of innocent people. Just like would it be immoral if you let one innocent person die in order to save 100 people?

We're not talking about those kinds of morally ambiguous situations. We're talking about things like God's command to kill children, God's slaughter of 70,000 Israelites for David's sin, God letting David off after adultery and murder, the concept of eternal conscious torment, etc., etc., etc..

Basically, we are talking about things that offend our sense of morality.

God did not say they were "immoral" for asking questions, but for questioning his wisdom. Maybe God choose not to tell Job why because he would not be able to comprehend it. Bottom line in God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. That's where faith comes in. We will never be able to figure out all the ways and whys of an infinite God. Thats what the ancients were commended for in Hebrews 11. They obeyed God whether they figured out the whys or not.

Good conversation,

Clifford
Yes, of course God's ways are higher than our ways. But the word "higher" does not mean "lower" and that's the problem we are discussing. Many of the actions and commandments of God in the Bible appear to be much "lower" than our own fallible human moral standards. That is the problem. If God's ways are really "higher" why do they appear to be "lower"?

And I agree - this is a very good conversation. I feel we need to free our minds from what we are "supposed" to believe and then maybe we can get some real insight into what is really going on in the Bible.

Clifford

03-05-2011, 09:46 PM

We're not talking about those kinds of morally ambiguous situations. We're talking about things like God's command to kill children, God's slaughter of 70,000 Israelites for David's sin, God letting David off after adultery and murder, the concept of eternal conscious torment, etc., etc., etc..

Basically, we are talking about things that offend our sense of morality.

Yes, of course God's ways are higher than our ways. But the word "higher" does not mean "lower" and that's the problem we are discussing. Many of the actions and commandments of God in the Bible appear to be much "lower" than our own fallible human moral standards. That is the problem. If God's ways are really "higher" why do they appear to be "lower"?

And I agree - this is a very good conversation. I feel we need to free our minds from what we are "supposed" to believe and then maybe we can get some real insight into what is really going on in the Bible.

We're not talking about those kinds of morally ambiguous situations. We're talking about things like God's command to kill children, God's slaughter of 70,000 Israelites for David's sin, God letting David off after adultery and murder, the concept of eternal conscious torment, etc., etc., etc..

But how do you know if God was not preventing a greater evil by having those children killed? They could have grown up and did much evil. Who knows. We don't see the whole picture. I keep reading over and over again on these posts how God killed "innocent" people. How do you know they were innocent? Those 70,000 Israelites might have been idol worshippers or were dong some other evil? How do you know? Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it speak of "eternal" conscious torment. It speak of hell and people suffering torment there, but it does not say people will be there eternally. But it also does not say they won't be eternally tormented either so its best not to have a doctrine one way or the other on that.

I feel we need to free our minds from what we are "supposed" to believe and then maybe we can get some real insight into what is really going on in the Bible.

Well, I for one am not repeating what I think I am "supposed" to believe but what I think the Bible actually teaches according to what I have studied. Of course I am sure I hold some false notions but am striving to learn the truth of the Bible as best I can.

Clifford

kathryn

03-05-2011, 10:11 PM

Richard: For example, the 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not murder." But God kills many without any morally legitimate reason, such as the 70,000 that he slaughtered after David took a census.

Hello Richard...Dominion over the earth was given to man, which is why Jesus fulfilled the Law as the "Son of Man" and the "Son of God". His death (which was the act of the Father "binding" Himself to His Law)paid the debt (all sin ..which simply means "missing the mark"..is reckoned as debt), legally giving us the dominion back. He waits for Christ to be fully formed in us, so that we can exercise His authority. David had to understand the consequences of disobedience. How could the Bride rule and reign with Him...in the present state of the church? The condition of iniquity is still resident within us.

David was a type of Christ in training. Jesus had to learn obedience by what he suffered. We don't have an illustration of this in the NT..but it can be understood through David's rise to the throne and the events surrounding it. God doesn't sit idly by while immense suffering is taking place on earth....but only Christ in His corporate Son/Man...has the legal right to dominion. He has given it to the Son(s) to bring Him the footstool .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard: First, I agree completely that David was a type of Christ. Indeed, when Christ ascended to his throne in heaven, Peter explained that it was typified by the "throne of David" (Acts 2:30). It is unfortunate that many Futurists completely overlook this fact and teach the entirely unbiblical doctrine that Christ will physically return to earth and rule from a literal "throne of David" in Jerusalem for exactly 365,242 days.

Yes...I agree. Although I do see Christ "coming" in and through His corporate Son(s)...and certainly not to a piece of real estate in the middle east. (we're his real estate, I believe :-)

Now it is interesting that you say the death of Christ was "the Father 'binding' Himself to His Law." The problem I have with that statement is that it has an extremely broad set of implications - too broad to be justified with explicit support from Scripture (IMHO).

It seemed to me to be the primary and most obvious example. All of the sacrificial laws pointed to this event in type and shadow..and all the rest in a less obvious manner.( I will add more to this, if need be.) God the Father sent His Son (the Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father..they are One)to fulfill the Law. In this respect, He bound Himself to His own Law. Would you mind elaborating on some of the broader applications for me?

Now the "Dominion" doctrine also seems quite foreign to me. Statements like "legally giving us the dominion back" always strike me as inventing doctrines by inappropriately taking metaphors as literal. If God is a "lawyer" who runs things by arbitrary "legalities" then we are all doomed. Where in the Bible does it say that man lost his "dominion" and then regained it by Christ's work on the cross? Is this a topic discussed in the NT? It "feels" like one of those weird doctrines made up by the dispensationalists like the "serpent seed" doctrine, and the re-built temple that will be re-desecrated by the re-vived Roman empire, and all that other sensationalized stuff not found in Scripture.

It was part of the original blessing on Adam. I simply believe that what was taken away (cursed) is what is to be restored/redeemed. I use the term "legally" because we are discussing the Law.

In Genesis 1:28, God blessed them and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In the Laws of blood and redemption in the story of Adam/Eve, part of the verdict against them (Gen. 3:17) was "cursed is the ground (earth) because of you. (for your sake) The ground was actually given the responsibility for Adam's sin. In the Law, when a man takes responsibility for sin(debt) of another, he is called a redeemer. In the Laws of redemption, the redeemer pays the debt and purchases the debtor. Adam became enslaved to the ground (earth) as the result of this redemption. The ground itself had the right of redemption because Adam was made from the dust of the ground and was therefore "near kinsman". So..we see Jesus as the Kinsman Redeemer, begin to fulfill the legal requirements even before the cross..in the garden, the night before the crucifixion, when He begins to bleed through his pores onto the ground in the garden. (in the blood sacrifices, the blood was thrown onto the ground, under the altar)

kathryn

03-05-2011, 10:18 PM

I just wanted to add that Adam lost his blessing in the garden when he sinned. (missed the mark) The restoration (payment of that debt) begins in the Second Adam "in the garden".

Richard Amiel McGough

03-05-2011, 10:21 PM

But how do you know if God was not preventing a greater evil by having those children killed? They could have grown up and did much evil. Who knows. We don't see the whole picture.

I don't think we are justified to try to explain things this way. If we know anything about God, it is that he did not prevent evil leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless others from reaching adulthood. Your suggestion creates more problems than it solves and does not seem to correspond to reality.

I keep reading over and over again on these posts how God killed "innocent" people. How do you know they were innocent? Those 70,000 Israelites might have been idol worshippers or were dong some other evil? How do you know?

We are free, of course, to invent any "background story" we like to justify God. But who would be satisfied with such inventions? Certainly not me! If God wanted us to believe that he carefully selected 70,000 who were already worthy of death for other crimes, he could have told us that. But he did not. Indeed, he gave no indication of anything like that at all. The fact that we need to make up this kind of stuff that is not written in the Bible to justify the stuff that actually is written should indicate that something is wrong.

Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it speak of "eternal" conscious torment. It speak of hell and people suffering torment there, but it does not say people will be there eternally. But it also does not say they won't be eternally tormented either so its best not to have a doctrine one way or the other on that.

I agree ... but most Christians do not. Most Christians believe that the Biblical doctrine is Eternal Conscious Torment for all non-Christians.

Well, I for one am not repeating what I think I am "supposed" to believe but what I think the Bible actually teaches according to what I have studied. Of course I am sure I hold some false notions but am striving to learn the truth of the Bible as best I can.

Clifford
Me too! That's what this is all about. We have all inherited many preconceived ideas about what the Bible really teaches. Think about it! We are coming along after 2000 years of traditions that affect everything. We use words that have meanings we have not even examined for ourselves, such as "hell" ... and this word, along with many other mistranslations, have gotten into the Bible we read! This means that our opinions are being formed for us by ancient traditions that could be false. The only way we can know is if we examine everything.

It's great to be working with you on a project of this magnitude and significance.

Craig.Paardekooper

03-06-2011, 03:18 AM

Here is the Star Trek 5 Clip - Kirk Asks a Good Question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpcGPPoawo)

What is the OT God Like ?

1. The OT God demands absolute obedience to the letter of His commands. Failure to do so results in severe punishment or death. The reason for such punishments is rarely given. For example Korah dissented and was immediately killed along with 250 religious leaders. The Hebrews were shocked at these killings and complained, so 14,700 of them were killed. It is never explained what Korah dissented about, or why 14,700 people should be killed

2. God provides no reason for killing huge numbers of people, eg He kills 70,000 Israelites because David did a census. No reason is given (Doing a census is not a sufficient reason). Other examples include -

killing the Egyptians
killing his own people during Sinai
killing the Canaanites

So in OT times, God rarely provides any moral or rational explanation for his actions. It seems that He does not feel any need to explain Himself.

So God can appear to be grossly immoral, since in most cases we cannot see the reasons for His actions. I suppose this is to be expected being as He is God, and He is not accountable to us.

When you think about it, that is what God is - an absolute authority - completely unaccountable - and most of the time beyond our ability to understand. If God did not have these qualities, He would not be God.

The other quality that appears is intollerance. When people dissent, God does not sit down and talk it through. He just destroys you. By dissenting, we are using our reason or moral judgement to judge God's actions - in other words we are assuming the position of judges of God - in this way we are making ourselves into Gods above God.

We can seek to understand God, but we cannot dissent - absolute obedience is always required.

Things may be a bit different now, with the sacrifice of Jesus - we are in a different relationship to God.

Rose

03-06-2011, 10:20 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-06-2011, 10:38 AM

Hi Craig,

Shouldn't the portrayal of God in the Old Testament make us stop and think...:sCo_hmmthink: and question :confused: that maybe, what we are seeing is only mans idea of God? In most of the myths of ancient time periods their gods are portrayed as tyrannical dictators, just like their rulers and kings were.

If there is a true creator God, why should our relationship to him be any different than a parent/child relationship? Just because something is written in the Bible by ancient peoples is no reason to believe it hook, line, and sinker!

Use your minds to think with folks....that what we have brains for!

Blessings,
Rose
Excellent points. Especially the "odd coincidence" that the ancient tribal gods, including Yahweh, are fashioned after irrational tyrannical male dictators accountable to no one. Hummmm .... :sCo_hmmthink:

kathryn

03-06-2011, 11:56 AM

Rose...yes, excellent points...!!!! Oddly enough I have never thought to consider the mindsets of the people writing the accounts. I was too busy trying to find justification for the carnage. I didn't stop to think how they would interpret the act or God's "anger". This might seem obvious to you, but it's a real eye opener to me, especially when the subject of the renewal of the mind has been such a passion of mine. I do believe the Bible was inspired by God...but never thought to really examine what that meant.

This fits in with Bob's post on the conscience of the High Priest. He no doubt assumed that God saw him as "worthy" in some respect, to enter the Holy of Holies. They obviously didn't understand the types and shadows or Jesus wouldn't have had to open their eyes after the resurrection and reveal Himself through the Law of Moses. I'm still pondering what his mindset could have been, both towards God and towards himself. We see self righteousness in full bloom within the priesthood of the NT.

It reminded me of the 3000 slain by the sword after the giving of the Law at Sinai, in our first type of Pentecost. We have, in the book of Acts, the account of 3000 converted at Pentecost, this time by the Sword of the Lord. Each type provides a deeper insight into the Heart of God. Did God change His heart towards His people? I don't think so.
Thanks Ruth! Lots to ponder!

Rose

03-06-2011, 12:52 PM

Rose...yes, excellent points...!!!! Oddly enough I have never thought to consider the mindsets of the people writing the accounts. I was too busy trying to find justification for the carnage. I didn't stop to think how they would interpret the act or God's "anger". This might seem obvious to you, but it's a real eye opener to me, especially when the subject of the renewal of the mind has been such a passion of mine. I do believe the Bible was inspired by God...but never thought to really examine what that meant.

Hi Kathryn,

It's only been in the last year that I've given serious thought to how the ancient peoples of biblical times might have viewed reality. What you said about being too busy trying to find justification for all of the carnage in the Bible was spot on...:thumb: I think that is exactly the position most Christians find themselves in....trying to justify God's actions to fit our morals. I have often said to myself: "how can I have a better sense of morality and goodness than God!". Maybe it's because God's ways are so much higher that they are actually lower...:lol:

Blessings,
Rose

Bob May

03-06-2011, 08:29 PM

. I do believe the Bible was inspired by God...but never thought to really examine what that meant.

2ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Instruction in righteousness. That means the OT, all of it is instructing us about our newfound life in Christ.
It is allegory. The large groups of people slaughtered were large goups of thoughts that need to be gotten rid of. That is In Us. We are being Renewed, Restored and Reprogramed. The "renewing of our minds in Christ. Some of those groups are "spiritual thoughts" but they are misguided ones.
An example of that would be the Entire Generation of the children of Israel that did not make it to the promised land.
Only Joshua (God Saves) and Caleb (a Dog, to attack) made it.
The idea that Jesus is our salvation and to fight any thoughts that stand in our way.

.
This fits in with Bob's post on the conscience of the High Priest. He no doubt assumed that God saw him as "worthy" in some respect, to enter the Holy of Holies. They obviously didn't understand the types and shadows or Jesus wouldn't have had to open their eyes after the resurrection and reveal Himself through the Law of Moses. I'm still pondering what his mindset could have been, both towards God and towards himself. We see self righteousness in full bloom within the priesthood of the NT.

I can't personally comment on the high priest's mindset, ( though I can guess), but I can tell you about my own mindset, as a member of a congregation that did an atonement ceremony once a year.
We got more and more into the law, no pork, etc., etc., and someone decided we should do atonement. We took it very seriously and did a three day fast and listed our sins for the year and took ritual showers or baths at our own homes and dressed in all natural clothes etc., etc.
I won't go into allt the details (no animals killed or any of that type thing.)

But we would bring our list of sins to the altar and put them in a container and when the servives were over they were taken out behind the church and burned.

I couldn't go a day, and more often than not I would have a wrong thought on the way back to my seat in church. Now I had to go a full year to be forgiven again. To have my sins atoned for.

After years of that you get the feeling of complete hopelessness. And the guilty conscience is always there.
So I know what being under the law is moreso than most Christians or even Jews for that matter.

That was my point. If the priest felt worthy he was not being honest. He was being hypocritical. If he was feeling unworthy he was being honest with himself,...therefore he should not have been doing the atonement ceremony for the people because he was not clean.

.

It reminded me of the 3000 slain by the sword after the giving of the Law at Sinai, in our first type of Pentecost. We have, in the book of Acts, the account of 3000 converted at Pentecost, this time by the Sword of the Lord. Each type provides a deeper insight into the Heart of God. Did God change His heart towards His people? I don't think so.
Thanks Ruth! Lots to ponder!

I never made that connection but there is the people at Pentacost understanding of other tongues in about 17 languages.
This is the opposite as the Tower of Babel story where God confused their speach so that they could not understand each other and finish a tower (made with hands ie. by their own efforts instead of by the Spirit.) to heaven.
The tower is a shadow of the time to come when they would try to reach heaven by the law = Again there own efforts or the works of their own hands.

God did not change his heart towards His people, he changed the people's Spirit. Now they can go back and re read those scriptures with open eyes and ears. But not if they hold onto those groups of thoughts ("peoples") that keep them looking at things through the filters of false ideas.

That is why it is "instruction in righteousness" and all scripture is profitable for that.
We are righteous if we are born from above. We just don't see how righteous because we have to renew our minds.

Re-programming is necessary. And that according to right thinking according to scripture.

Craig.Paardekooper

03-07-2011, 02:24 AM

Excellent points. Especially the "odd coincidence" that the ancient tribal gods, including Yahweh, are fashioned after irrational tyrannical male dictators accountable to no one. Hummmm ....

It is worth remembering that the "tyrannical" OT God spans the entire history of the Jews apart from the last 40 years after the time of Jesus.

Jesus came to preach repentance to save people from the coming wrath. 40 years later Jerusalem was annihilated.

So whilst Jesus preached about a loving Father, it is possible to argue that the same OT God was there all along.

Also, there is a paralelism.

40 years after the Mosaic Covenant was given, the Jews entered the Promised Land and drove out 7 nations.

40 years after the New Covenant was given, the Jews were removed from the Promised Land. Coincidentally, the Church, the new people of God - consisted of the 7 churches mentioned in Revelations.

This parallelism shows that both judgements were the work of God - the final judgement in 70 A.D. and the Conquest of Canaan.

In both cases God was dealing with spiritual evil -

At the time of the Conquest, the 7 nations of Canaan were descendents and followers of the Nephilim - the offspring of the Sons of God.

At the time of the Judgement in 70 A.D. - the New Testament and the Book of Enoch state that now had come the judgement upon the Sons of God who had given birth to the Nephilim.

These things could be taken into account when accusations of genocide are made against God regarding the events of the conquest of Canaan.

kathryn

03-07-2011, 03:30 AM

Craig:So whilst Jesus preached about a loving Father, it is possible to argue that the same OT God was there all along.

Hi Craig...Jesus was the God of the Old Testament:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Rose

03-07-2011, 08:50 AM

It is worth remembering that the "tyrannical" OT God spans the entire history of the Jews apart from the last 40 years after the time of Jesus.

Jesus came to preach repentance to save people from the coming wrath. 40 years later Jerusalem was annihilated.

So whilst Jesus preached about a loving Father, it is possible to argue that the same OT God was there all along.

Also, there is a paralelism.

40 years after the Mosaic Covenant was given, the Jews entered the Promised Land and drove out 7 nations.

40 years after the New Covenant was given, the Jews were removed from the Promised Land. Coincidentally, the Church, the new people of God - consisted of the 7 churches mentioned in Revelations.

This parallelism shows that both judgements were the work of God - the final judgement in 70 A.D. and the Conquest of Canaan.

In both cases God was dealing with spiritual evil -

At the time of the Conquest, the 7 nations of Canaan were descendents and followers of the Nephilim - the offspring of the Sons of God.

At the time of the Judgement in 70 A.D. - the New Testament and the Book of Enoch state that now had come the judgement upon the Sons of God who had given birth to the Nephilim.

These things could be taken into account when accusations of genocide are made against God regarding the events of the conquest of Canaan.

Hi Craig,

I agree, there are many wonderful parallelisms that run the span of the entire biblical history, showing us an amazing display of design, but the main focus for me right now is the way God's actions are portrayed in the Bible: were they moral by human standards?

My answer is: of course they were not! If God is all powerful as he is presented in the Bible, then at any point prior to murdering innocent folk and mass genocide he could have intervened and changed the course of history without all the killing. Take for instance, Gen. 6 where it speaks of the origins of the Nephilim....God could have prevented the sons of God from intermingling with the daughters of men, after all he intervened later on by having them all murdered in the Flood! So, why not take preventative measures to begin with?

It just seems to the rational mind that much of the history in the Old Testament is a haphazard, mish-mash of jumbled up actions that could have been directed a lot better if God had taken preventative measures from the beginning....that's just the way my rational mind thinks. And you know when one looks around at the way the whole of the cosmos is ordered, it all runs in a rational manner....I can make sense of it, which feels so good to my brain.:p

Blessings,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper

03-08-2011, 03:11 PM

Rose

03-08-2011, 04:48 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-08-2011, 08:29 PM

Well, as much as I would like to understand why God does things, I realise that we are actually in dangerous water. The primary mistake of Adam and Eve was that they tried to rationally question the motives of God, and where did it get them?

I think that it is really, really dangerous to attempt to question God's motives. We don't have the wisdom to understand why God does anything, unless He tells us that HE has done something exclusively for a specific reason.

All we can do is obey. It might feel like a pain but it's safer. I am sure that in time all things will fall into place.

All we have to do is realise how intelligent a Creator is, then based on that , have faith that what He does is ultimately for the Good.... and obey.

I have often wandered what I would have done in Eden. Would I have listened to the Serpent who questioned God's motives, or would I just wait a little while until Father God reappeared, and then listen to His answers.
Hey there Craig,

I think the greatest danger is for any person is to "obey" without questioning. Think of Hitler! Think of every cult that has ever existed. They all make it "anathema" to ask questions. The Bible teaches exactly the opposite:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
The Bible exhorts us to judge, to use our minds, to reason, and to evaluate the facts and to discern between truth and falsehood. Paul presented logical arguments in his letters, and exhorted the readers to judge for themselves the validity of what he wrote:
1 Corinthians 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
In the realm of the intellect and religion, asking questions is perhaps our highest moral duty. If we fail to examine the facts, how would we know if we are following God, man, or the devil?

I am not questioning "God's motives" per se - I am questioning how we are supposed to understand the Bible. The problem is that the Bible refutes Biblical fundamentalism. If we take the highest possible view of Scripture, and assume that every "jot and tittle" is exactly as God intended, then we know he intended to make the Bible look like it has errors! If you meditate on the implications of this fact, I think you will see that the Bible was designed to force any honest reader to ask very probing questions. Simple "obedience" is not an option. How do we know what to obey? Some folks teach that Christians must obey the seventh day sabbath. Others teach we must obey the dietary laws. And others teach that we don't have to obey any laws at all! So we are forced to question everything. Of course, that doesn't disturb me in the least. I think its a great thing. We can be quite certain that God is not threatened by our questions.

There's a lot more to say, but I think that's enough for now.

All the best,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper

03-09-2011, 12:54 AM

The scary part of interpreting your statement about "all we can do is obey" is WHO are we really obeying? God or someones interpretation of what they think God is saying....that's where all the trouble comes in.

We are obeying Jesus, and His interpretation of the Bible.

Craig.Paardekooper

03-09-2011, 01:13 AM

David's power was supernatural. Israel survived, surrounded by much stronger nations, only because of supernatural power. God fought the battle for them time and time again...and David goes and orders a Census. These people were Chosen by God. In taking a Census, David was relying on his/their own physical might and forsaking the faith. In other words, he was saying, we have half a million men...we can fight this war. While this is logical in the carnal world, for David and Israel, it was blasphemy. If they witnessed God's power time and time again...why would he now number Israel?

So, if Israel had been protected by supernatural power all that time, then David chose to go-it-alone, then that would naturally open up Israel to being attacked once the super natural protection was removed. They could be attacked by invaders, by disease or by famine.

So Satan's strategy was to get David to relinquish supernatural protection - ie persuade David to choose to go-it-alone. Once Satan had achieved that, then Satan could send lots of horrible things against David's people.

David had just finished decimating Satan's precious Nephilims in Canaan, so I can understand why Satan wanted to get revenge badly.

So , often in the Bible a passage that seems irrational and cruel, is found to have a meaning that makes sense. The key idea here is that Satan could only get at David, by getting David to relinquish God first.

Bob May

03-09-2011, 05:18 AM

I don't really see it as questioning God per-say, but rather as questioning the literal validity of the Bible....these are two very different statements. If I actually knew for a FACT that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD written by his hand and imprinted on my brain then maybe I wouldn't question the Bible, BUT that is NOT the case!
Blessings,
Rose

Hi Rose,
I thought Richard did a pretty good job illustrating that God wrote the Bible in the Biblewheel.
Here is something that might help.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/JoshuaMelchizedek.jpg

This is a scan of an Equidistant Letter Code or ELS that I found. It is the names Joshua (Jesus in Hebrew) and Melkizedek forming a cross in the 14th chapter of Genesis. The closer the distance, the closer the meanings of the chosen words.
This one is obviously no accident.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Bible is actually a compilation of myths and metaphors of how people through the ages have perceived God, creating archetypal images that represent an underlying reality. I don't for a minute think that many of the stories presented in the Bible actually happened, but rather they are the formulation of archetypal ideas that shape our understanding of existence.
Rose

But the Myths that illustrate those underlying realities were written by God.
If one letter was removed from the manuscript above the Joshua/Melchizedek would not have lined up in a cross form. The manuscripts were matrixes that act like a crossword puzzle grid. One letter removed would mess up the next line of letters.
Who but God would have thought to include that code in the text unless He knew we would come up with a way to break it in the future. Meaning computers.
Also it is significant that it is within the story of Abraham meeting Melchizedek, (that is in the very same chapter and verse), that I found this cross.
It is not the only place where the two words are close but the only one where they form a cross.

The scary part of interpreting your statement about "all we can do is obey" is WHO are we really obeying? God or someones interpretation of what they think God is saying....that's where all the trouble comes in. :eek:
Rose

The Bible is about TRUTH, not facts. The people asked for the law. God wanted to speak to them directly but they did not want any part of that.

But if they looked more deeply into the law for the Truth of what it was they would not have been stoning virgins at all. And Jesus illustrated this with the non-stoning of the adulteress. Apparently he was not following the law. He was following the Weightier matters which are in the law but not as apparent.

All of the battles where God is wiping out whole groups of "people" is God wiping out groups of wrong thinking that keep us from speaking directly with Him and He with us.

I don't know whether or not the Patriarchs even ever lived. It does not matter to me. If they did, then there lives were a living allegory of our spiritual awakenings. If they did not they were cunningly devised fables.
But either way they were written by the hand of God.
All scripture was written to us, for us, and about us.

I have heard it asked many times why God does not come out and say things directly and uses codes and analogy.
I think the reason for this is that we live in a "World of Analogy."

His Creation matches His literary creation. Both were created by His Word. Both follow the same pattern. If we learn to read and understand the Bible correctly, (and there are many "codes" that help us do this) we also learn to understand His Creation.
According to Hebrew scholars there are four levels of reading Scripture.

Literal
Implied
Allegorical
Spiritual

We are just discussing the third level (Allegorical) here. And then just scratching the surface.
I think if we have experiences concerning the forth level, "Spiritual" we will know even as we are known. It will be more direct and not subject to interpretation.

Rose

03-09-2011, 09:02 AM

But the Myths that illustrate those underlying realities were written by God.
If one letter was removed from the manuscript above the Joshua/Melchizedek would not have lined up in a cross form. The manuscripts were matrixes that act like a crossword puzzle grid. One letter removed would mess up the next line of letters.
Who but God would have thought to include that code in the text unless He knew we would come up with a way to break it in the future. Meaning computers.
Also it is significant that it is within the story of Abraham meeting Melchizedek, (that is in the very same chapter and verse), that I found this cross.
It is not the only place where the two words are close but the only one where they form a cross.

Hi Bob,

I have no doubt that the Bible displays a supernatural design...I've discovered many wonderful patterns myself...:D The issue at hand is taking the literal meaning of the words to be commands from God. It's one thing to see how underlying archetypal principles shaped and formed the structure of the Bible through the ideas of many peoples over the centuries, but quite another to hold that every word was written by the hand of God, as many fundamentalists do.

The Bible is about TRUTH, not facts. The people asked for the law. God wanted to speak to them directly but they did not want any part of that.

But if they looked more deeply into the law for the Truth of what it was they would not have been stoning virgins at all. And Jesus illustrated this with the non-stoning of the adulteress. Apparently he was not following the law. He was following the Weightier matters which are in the law but not as apparent.

All of the battles where God is wiping out whole groups of "people" is God wiping out groups of wrong thinking that keep us from speaking directly with Him and He with us.

I don't know whether or not the Patriarchs even ever lived. It does not matter to me. If they did, then there lives were a living allegory of our spiritual awakenings. If they did not they were cunningly devised fables.
But either way they were written by the hand of God.
All scripture was written to us, for us, and about us.

I have heard it asked many times why God does not come out and say things directly and uses codes and analogy.
I think the reason for this is that we live in a "World of Analogy."

His Creation matches His literary creation. Both were created by His Word. Both follow the same pattern. If we learn to read and understand the Bible correctly, (and there are many "codes" that help us do this) we also learn to understand His Creation.
According to Hebrew scholars there are four levels of reading Scripture.

Literal
Implied
Allegorical
Spiritual

We are just discussing the third level (Allegorical) here. And then just scratching the surface.
I think if we have experiences concerning the forth level, "Spiritual" we will know even as we are known. It will be more direct and not subject to interpretation.

It's pretty obvious in this day and age that the Bible is NOT about Facts, so that leaves us with defining the meaning of TRUTH. If we see truth as reality, that which all expressions come from, then one can see how the Scriptures were formed by the ideas of man being shared as myths and metaphors. So, if the way you define being "written by the hand of God" is that all truths, whether they be written as metaphors or myths are ultimately from the hand of God, because they express a underlying reality as archetypal principles.

Blessings,
Rose

Bob May

03-09-2011, 10:10 AM

Hi Bob,

I have no doubt that the Bible displays a supernatural design...I've discovered many wonderful patterns myself...:D The issue at hand is taking the literal meaning of the words to be commands from God. It's one thing to see how underlying archetypal principles shaped and formed the structure of the Bible through the ideas of many peoples over the centuries, but quite another to hold that every word was written by the hand of God, as many fundamentalists do.
Rose

No, we do not take the literal meaning as Truth. Moses brought the law, Jesus his anti-type brought Truth and Grace.
The law brings every man guilty before God. That is what I've been trying to communicate. If you try to follow the law you break the law in the process.

Every word was written by the hand of God. In that the Fundamentalists are correct. They are only reading it literally so not keeping the law.
It is not just a bunch of do's and don'ts.
The law of circumcision for example is a Covenant, not a commandment. It is a Prophecy and a Promise.

Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Ge 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Ge 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

God is promising to remove the flesh from our hearts so that we can inherit the land that was promised to Israel. That land is our understand of "surely God is in this place and I knew it not."
This happens throughout his generations.
What are those generations? Abraham believed and it was counted unto him as righteousness. Jacob said "surely the lord is in this place and I knew it not." David said blessed is the man who's sins are not counted against him.

These are awarenesses that we go through.
Our understanding of God and his word changes but it all boils down to an awareness of Grace. These stages of our understanding are the generations of Abraham.
By Grace we are made innocent before God and able to approach Him. The end result was the understanding that Jesus had. "I and the Father are One."

Rose[/QUOTE]

Hi Bob,
It's pretty obvious in this day and age that the Bible is NOT about Facts, so that leaves us with defining the meaning of TRUTH. If we see truth as reality, that which all expressions come from, then one can see how the Scriptures were formed by the ideas of man being shared as myths and metaphors. So, if the way you define being "written by the hand of God" is that all truths, whether they be written as metaphors or myths are ultimately from the hand of God, because they express a underlying reality as archetypal principles.Blessings,
Rose

Yes it is underlying Principles. The OT is like Tension, torsion, and compression and the formulas that pertain to them. Without this understanding they could not build a bridge that will stand.
But we do not define Truth. We begin to realise we are being fed Truth a little at a time. That is revelation.
All scripture is profitable for instruction in Righteousness.
Not instruction about righteousness.
First we are made Righteous and then we are taught by the law (which failed to bring us to righteousness) Because by going back to the law and looking at it from another perspective, Righteousness we begin to see the patterns and the forces involved. They were always there but we did not see them.
Because we were reading it literally and trying to Define Truth.
Truth is revealed, not defined.

Bob May

03-09-2011, 10:43 AM

Hi Rose,
I just thought of something. You mentioned "This day and age."
I belive we are in the last times and have been since the Cross, Resurrection and Pentecost.

Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

You mentioned fundamentalist mentality.
I first thought the verses above were about some cult leaders claiming to be Christ.
Later I realized it was talking about people claiming to be Christians.

We can get information from anywhere but it is up to us to weed out what is truth and what is not. That is what all Scripture is for. Without it as a measuring tape we are lost at sea in a storm.
And without the faith that it is the word of God we are just as lost.

When I come across things in the bible that don't seem to add up, I just assume that I don't understand it yet. I don't lose faith in the word.
I just wait and sooner or later the answer comes to me. That has happened so many times that there is no doubt in my mind.
Those things are "the evidence of things not seen." And that is faith.

I am sure you realize this. I'm just reminding you.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-09-2011, 10:49 AM

Hi Rose,
I thought Richard did a pretty good job illustrating that God wrote the Bible in the Biblewheel.

Hey there Bob,

I still believe that Bible Wheel provides solid evidence supporting the idea that there is a "supernatural" origin of the traditional 66-book Biblical canon. And I believe it is extremely helpful to bring the major themes into clear focus, such as "Creation" on Spoke 1 and "Consummation" on Spoke 22. None of my questions and re-evaluations of what I have believed about Christianity have impacted any of my conclusions about the Bible Wheel except one - I no longer can say it is "proof" that "God did it." And why can't I say that anymore? Because I no longer have any idea what the word "God" means! Is the Christian God supposed to be a "Zeus-like" agent, a "super-powered person"? It seems traditional Christian theology teaches exactly that. But they add a lot of logically incoherent features like "absolute omniscience" which implies that God is not like a "person" in any meaningful sense because he has never been able to make a decision of any kind since he always knew what he would do before he did it. So he is "frozen" in eternity. He can't "move a muscle" so to speak. He's not anything like a person that could love and be loved, or even hated for that matter. This traditional "God" is more like a "brute fact" or "abstract principle" or "law of nature" without any consciousness in the sense we understand it. In what sense could such a "God" be said to even exist as a "person"? He's just "there" - unmoving and unmovable. This god is pretty much Plato's "Form of the Good." So we have a completely incoherent combo-god of the pagan Zeus + Plato's Form of the Good. It's all just man's ideas mished and mashed into an incoherent philopholistic pudding. And the proof is in the eating of it! :p

Therefore, our task is to define what we mean by "God" before we can say anything about what that God has done.

Here is something that might help.

This is a scan of an Equidistant Letter Code or ELS that I found. It is the names Joshua (Jesus in Hebrew) and Melkizedek forming a cross in the 14th chapter of Genesis. The closer the distance, the closer the meanings of the chosen words.
This one is obviously no accident.

Actually, I must disagree for many reasons. I truly do believe it is an accident or better, a "mere coincidence." First, the Hebrew text is no where near perfect (http://books.google.com/books?id=j8Imn3U11m8C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=textual+problems+in+genesis&source=bl&ots=SV1CYhO-3O&sig=dtjg8gzize9QVa6CMM-hqNP4lJE&hl=en&ei=dbd3TYGvIoz6sAP0k8zCBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=textual%20problems%20in%20genesis&f=false). Different copies have different numbers of letters. There are textual variations in it just like in the Greek texts. And there are more variations than we can even know about because worn copies were ritualistically destroyed (buried like a person would be). But we do have enough ancient manuscripts to know that there are many differences between copies. Therefore, I can have absolutely no confidence that there is not a letter, or two, or three, missing or added in the span of 1716 letters.

Second, the letters Yod and Vav are two of the most common in the Torah. So the chance of finding a four letter word with those letters is very high. And you scanned through thousands of possibilities. So again, I have no reason not to think it was chance.

Third, the spelling of Yeshua is not even correct, especially in association with Melchizedek. In all my studies of Gematria, I have found that the spelling of Yehoshua = 391 is confirmed with overwhelming certainty as the proper spelling of the name of Jesus, as opposed to Yeshua = 386. And it is specifically integrated with the name of Melchizedek, who was explicitly a type of Christ (as explained in Hebrews on Spoke 14, corresponding to Genesis 14 (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Genesis/Genesis14.asp) where Melchizedek and the word "Hebrew" were first introduced). Here are a few of the identities that I believe strongly confirm the correct spelling of Yehoshua (link (http://biblewheel.com/gr/gr_754.asp))

754 = Shem Qadshi (My Holy Name)
754 = Yehoshua HaMeshiach (Jesus Christ)
754 = Melchizedek Melek Shalom (Melchizedek, King of Peace, Gen 14:18)
754 = He' Exousia (The Authority)

So why would God design his "Holy Name" to be numerically integrated with Melchizedek but then design the ELS upon a defective spelling that drops the Hey of the theophoric element "YH" in Yehoshua?

If one letter was removed from the manuscript above the Joshua/Melchizedek would not have lined up in a cross form. The manuscripts were matrixes that act like a crossword puzzle grid. One letter removed would mess up the next line of letters.

That's exactly correct. But I can assure you with absolute certainty that you would find seemingly "meaningful" patterns in any Hebrew text if you scanned over thousands of skip lengths for words with just a few letters. The fundamental problem is that there is no way to discern between chance and design in the ELS programs. Sure, they often report the "probability" but I think those calculations are erroneous.

It's great to be working with you on these questions.

All the best,

Richard

Clifford

03-09-2011, 09:02 PM

Bob May

03-09-2011, 10:27 PM

Hey there Bob,

I still believe that Bible Wheel provides solid evidence supporting the idea that there is a "supernatural" origin of the traditional 66-book Biblical canon. And I believe it is extremely helpful to bring the major themes into clear focus, such as "Creation" on Spoke 1 and "Consummation" on Spoke 22. None of my questions and re-evaluations of what I have believed about Christianity have impacted any of my conclusions about the Bible Wheel except one - I no longer can say it is "proof" that "God did it." And why can't I say that anymore? Because I no longer have any idea what the word "God" means!
Richard

I think our idea of God is supposed to change. Also our idea of what existence is and even what we are.
You are very good at what you do. I am impressed with your mind and work on this site and in the Bible wheel.
But the proof you seem to be looking for does not exist. Not outward proof. Jesus brought back Lazarus from the dead and the powers that be put a contract out on Lazarus. We have evidence. That is enough.
We prove things to our own satisfaction and move on to other things. sometimes they are small things and sometimes big things. We gather evidence because that is what faith is made of.

Is the Christian God supposed to be a "Zeus-like" agent, a "super-powered person"? It seems traditional Christian theology teaches exactly that. But they add a lot of logically incoherent features like "absolute omniscience" which implies that God is not like a "person" in any meaningful sense because he has never been able to make a decision of any kind since he always knew what he would do before he did it. So he is "frozen" in eternity. He can't "move a muscle" so to speak. He's not anything like a person that could love and be loved, or even hated for that matter. This traditional "God" is more like a "brute fact" or "abstract principle" or "law of nature" without any consciousness in the sense we understand it. In what sense could such a "God" be said to even exist as a "person"? He's just "there" - unmoving and unmovable. This god is pretty much Plato's "Form of the Good." So we have a completely incoherent combo-god of the pagan Zeus + Plato's Form of the Good. It's all just man's ideas mished and mashed into an incoherent philopholistic pudding. And the proof is in the eating of it! :p

Therefore, our task is to define what we mean by "God" before we can say anything about what that God has done.

Richard

If we define God we can be pretty sure it ain't God we're discussing.
The closest thing to traditional that I've been involved with is three years of Catholic school and church when I was a boy.
After that, when I was about 22 I got really involved with the Carlos Castaneda books for a few years and had some frightening experiences. Then I joined an Esoteric Christian Church and looked into meditation and the Qabalah and so forth
And had more spiritual experiences some very frightening and some very enlightening and some you would recognize from bible readings. I stayed there for 14 years being very involved and left after a dissagreement on Grace vs, Law issues.
Then I attended a Full Gospel church for about three years and walked out during a service about building funds or some such and never went back. My friend Brad once pointed out that he had listened carefully during services and the Pastor hadn't mentioned Jesus for three weeks in a row.That was the end of my church attendance for me and my family. I figured my sons would have too much to unlearn later if they grew up in a church.
I learn better on my own. God is here all the time even when I'm not paying attention like I should. I guess He is becoming more like a person to me. I've seen His scary side.
But who knows? Each time I have had what I consider a spiritual experience it has been nothing like any of the others.
I started to meditate again recently and it is a little frightening wondering what's next?

Actually, I must disagree for many reasons. I truly do believe it is an accident or better, a "mere coincidence." First, the Hebrew text is no where near perfect (http://books.google.com/books?id=j8Imn3U11m8C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=textual+problems+in+genesis&source=bl&ots=SV1CYhO-3O&sig=dtjg8gzize9QVa6CMM-hqNP4lJE&hl=en&ei=dbd3TYGvIoz6sAP0k8zCBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=textual%20problems%20in%20genesis&f=false). Different copies have different numbers of letters. There are textual variations in it just like in the Greek texts. And there are more variations than we can even know about because worn copies were ritualistically destroyed (buried like a person would be). But we do have enough ancient manuscripts to know that there are many differences between copies. Therefore, I can have absolutely no confidence that there is not a letter, or two, or three, missing or added in the span of 1716 letters.

Second, the letters Yod and Vav are two of the most common in the Torah. So the chance of finding a four letter word with those letters is very high. And you scanned through thousands of possibilities. So again, I have no reason not to think it was chance.

Third, the spelling of Yeshua is not even correct, especially in association with Melchizedek. In all my studies of Gematria, I have found that the spelling of Yehoshua = 391 is confirmed with overwhelming certainty as the proper spelling of the name of Jesus, as opposed to Yeshua = 386. And it is specifically integrated with the name of Melchizedek, who was explicitly a type of Christ (as explained in Hebrews on Spoke 14, corresponding to Genesis 14 (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Genesis/Genesis14.asp) where Melchizedek and the word "Hebrew" were first introduced). Here are a few of the identities that I believe strongly confirm the correct spelling of Yehoshua (link (http://biblewheel.com/gr/gr_754.asp))

754 = Shem Qadshi (My Holy Name)
754 = Yehoshua HaMeshiach (Jesus Christ)
754 = Melchizedek Melek Shalom (Melchizedek, King of Peace, Gen 14:18)
754 = He' Exousia (The Authority)

Richard

You think it was an accident and you know a lot more than me about it. That's ok. I'll stick with my opinion though.

So why would God design his "Holy Name" to be numerically integrated with Melchizedek but then design the ELS upon a defective spelling that drops the Hey of the theophoric element "YH" in Yehoshua?

Maybe it wouldn't work with the other spelling. There still has to be a story told in the matrix.

Originally Posted by Bob May
If one letter was removed from the manuscript above the Joshua/Melchizedek would not have lined up in a cross form. The manuscripts were matrixes that act like a crossword puzzle grid. One letter removed would mess up the next line of letters.

[QUOTE=RAM;29241]

That's exactly correct. But I can assure you with absolute certainty that you would find seemingly "meaningful" patterns in any Hebrew text if you scanned over thousands of skip lengths for words with just a few letters. The fundamental problem is that there is no way to discern between chance and design in the ELS programs. Sure, they often report the "probability" but I think those calculations are erroneous.

It's great to be working with you on these questions.

All the best,

Richard

I thought it might help your wife see things a bit differently. In the grand scheme of things it is not important. I thought it was significant though.
Even without calculating the odds.

If you don't, that's ok.

What impresses me more though is that from where are in outer space,the moon exactly covers the sun during an eclipse. That's one that would be hard to calculate the odds.

Good talking to you.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2011, 12:00 AM

But the proof you seem to be looking for does not exist. Not outward proof. Jesus brought back Lazarus from the dead and the powers that be put a contract out on Lazarus. We have evidence. That is enough.

We prove things to our own satisfaction and move on to other things. sometimes they are small things and sometimes big things. We gather evidence because that is what faith is made of.

It seems like you are distinguishing between "proof" and "evidence."

I generally think in terms of "evidence," but when there is enough evidence I begin to think it is "proof." Unless I'm doing mathematics or pure logic, in which case the idea of "proof" dominates.

If we define God we can be pretty sure it ain't God we're discussing.

I know what you mean, but if we don't define "God" then we can be certain it is not "God" that we are discussing!

The word "God" is a word. A word without a definition means nothing. If we do not defined what we mean by "God" then we might just as well be discussing the sqibbldockerity of the jabberwocky.

The closest thing to traditional that I've been involved with is three years of Catholic school and church when I was a boy.
After that, when I was about 22 I got really involved with the Carlos Castaneda books for a few years and had some frightening experiences. Then I joined an Esoteric Christian Church and looked into meditation and the Qabalah and so forth
And had more spiritual experiences some very frightening and some very enlightening and some you would recognize from bible readings. I stayed there for 14 years being very involved and left after a dissagreement on Grace vs, Law issues.
Then I attended a Full Gospel church for about three years and walked out during a service about building funds or some such and never went back. My friend Brad once pointed out that he had listened carefully during services and the Pastor hadn't mentioned Jesus for three weeks in a row.That was the end of my church attendance for me and my family. I figured my sons would have too much to unlearn later if they grew up in a church.
I learn better on my own. God is here all the time even when I'm not paying attention like I should. I guess He is becoming more like a person to me. I've seen His scary side.
But who knows? Each time I have had what I consider a spiritual experience it has been nothing like any of the others.
I started to meditate again recently and it is a little frightening wondering what's next?

Fascinating history. Thanks for sharing. We share a lot of common points. I read Castaneda as a teen, and studied Qabbalah in some depth in my 30's (early 1990's). I began with "pop" spirituality that led into a study of Hebrew and Gematria, and that led to the NT and then I "discovered" I was a Christian in 1992. I was then became more and more "fundamentalist" till the early 2000s, and slowly have been realizing that it didn't "fit" with my understanding of reality.

You think it was an accident and you know a lot more than me about it. That's ok. I'll stick with my opinion though.

That's fine. I was only sharing my perspective. And I could be wrong, you know! :winking0071:

So why would God design his "Holy Name" to be numerically integrated with Melchizedek but then design the ELS upon a defective spelling that drops the Hey of the theophoric element "YH" in Yehoshua?

Maybe it wouldn't work with the other spelling. There still has to be a story told in the matrix.

I'm sure God could have found a way to modify the story to fit with Yehoshua if that were his desire.

I thought it might help your wife see things a bit differently. In the grand scheme of things it is not important. I thought it was significant though.
Even without calculating the odds.

I appreciate that, but neither Rose or I have any doubt about the apparently divine design of the Bible. The problem is how to understand that in light of all the stuff about the Bible that really doesn't seem "worthy of God."

What impresses me more though is that from where are in outer space,the moon exactly covers the sun during an eclipse. That's one that would be hard to calculate the odds.

Good talking to you.
That's an interesting coincidence. I wonder why it is significant. I mean, why is it better that the visual size of the moon match the visual size of the sun? Suppose it was larger. Why would that matter?

Great chatting.

Bob May

03-10-2011, 10:04 AM

It seems like you are distinguishing between "proof" and "evidence."

I generally think in terms of "evidence," but when there is enough evidence I begin to think it is "proof." Unless I'm doing mathematics or pure logic, in which case the idea of "proof" dominates.

Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Yes, I am differentiating between proof and evidence.
I believe we are living in an allegorical world. The symbols we are surrounded by mean something more than the appearances.
In Yoga and some other systems of spiritual study and even in quantum physics we hear the idea of illusion. Nothing is as it seems.
The problem with that theory is we arive at the idea of illusion and we are stopped.
With allegory it is different. The patterns (both stories in the bible and the lives that we live here on earth) lead us to something more.

By comparing appearances with appearances science comes up with "proof."
By comparing appearances with those things which do not appear we learn something of the unseen.

I know what you mean, but if we don't define "God" then we can be certain it is not "God" that we are discussing!

The word "God" is a word. A word without a definition means nothing. If we do not defined what we mean by "God" then we might just as well be discussing the sqibbldockerity of the jabberwocky.

God has many functions or attributes. Sometimes He is loving and caring and sometimes He is a destroyer. As you know the word God is a generic term and there are many names of God in the Hebrew.
As I said before, I believe the wars and killing and genocide in the OT are allegory.
I'm not even sure that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real flesh and blood people. I tend to think they were, but the stories relating to them are for us. We look at the patterns of their travels and dealings with God and see our spiritual life.
This is why there are two geneologies given for Jesus. One begins at Adam and the other at Abraham.
One is his body the other his awakening to God, beginning with faith in the unseen god and it's consequences.
Not that Jesus wasn't fully son of God, but it is another pattern for us to see and check where we are in our understanding of God.

Fascinating history. Thanks for sharing. We share a lot of common points. I read Castaneda as a teen, and studied Qabbalah in some depth in my 30's (early 1990's). I began with "pop" spirituality that led into a study of Hebrew and Gematria, and that led to the NT and then I "discovered" I was a Christian in 1992. I was then became more and more "fundamentalist" till the early 2000s, and slowly have been realizing that it didn't "fit" with my understanding of reality.

So, you are still wrestling with coming out from under the law. It is a slow process and that is the reason for the evidence of things not seen and the patterns in the Patriarch's lives. We are free from the law but those things still nag at us.
2ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

We have been made righteous but now we are finding out what that means. It takes time.

That's fine. I was only sharing my perspective. And I could be wrong, you know! :winking0071:

Stranger things have happened. I heard a preacher (Mike Williams)say one time, "I don't mind being proven wrong,... Cause then I'm right."

I'm sure God could have found a way to modify the story to fit with Yehoshua if that were his desire.

I appreciate that, but neither Rose or I have any doubt about the apparently divine design of the Bible. The problem is how to understand that in light of all the stuff about the Bible that really doesn't seem "worthy of God."

But the story is the important thing. He is still working within limitations when dealing with this physical world.

That's an interesting coincidence. I wonder why it is significant. I mean, why is it better that the visual size of the moon match the visual size of the sun? Suppose it was larger. Why would that matter?

Great chatting.

Because He knew where we would be standing when He aligned everything and decided what sizes everything should be.

The word coincidence is an interesting word. It has to do with two or more occurances happening at exactly the same point in time or space. It's definition has several aspects to it but all have this idea of exactness. This word is used as a technical term in engineering and machining manuals quite a bit.
It is only one definition that says anything about this phenomena being "Chance" or accidental. And that only says "apparently by chance." Look it up, it's interesting that the common use of the word is the least likely definition.

Good talking to you, Bob

Craig.Paardekooper

03-10-2011, 11:21 AM

I have been reading the book of Numbers. I was particularly dismayed by the Biblical method of detecting whether a woman has been unfaithful.

The method entails taking dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and mixing it with holy water. The woman then has to drink it. If she falls ill then she is guilty. If she does not fall ill then she is innocent.

With all the sacrifices taking place in the Tabernacle, it's floor would be covered with blood, excrement and dirt.

Most people would probably get ill, and so would be convicted of adultry - which fetched the death penalty.

Another thing that bothered me was the law that requires a person to clean themselves within 3 days if they have touched a dead body. In addition they have to sprinkle the ashes of a dead cow on themselves. Otherwise they have to be removed from the people of Israel.

It seems odd to me that this law would be issued by an all knowing God, because if you touch a dead body you should wash straight away - not after 3 days. And sprinking the ashes of a dead cow has no effect on cleanness.

So based on these two verses alone, the Bible furnishes us with proof that the Mosaic Law cannot have come from an all knowing being like God.

These laws are primitive human inventions.

Perhaps it was more like this - God inspired Moses to create a set of laws which were the best laws that a primitive man like Moses could come up with. Just like GOd may have inspired the American declaration of Human Rights. Then God helped enforce those laws by backing up Moses authority with several miraculous signs and punishments. God MAY have had some input into the content of the Law, but He ALLOWED Moses to put alot of man made laws in too.

Think of it like a teacher asking a child to do their best picture of a tree. The picture is not perfect, but it is the best the child can produce.

We know that the first set of tablets were destroyed - and they contained God's Laws. For the second set of tablets it seems God had allowed Moses to create many of the Laws so that they would be more acceptable to the primitive minds of the Israelites. God may have had some input, but He certainly allowed Moses to add content. And God then enforced these laws.

It seems that God compromises quite often in the narratives inorder to accomodate Israelite habits. For example, His intention was that the Jews eat only Manna in the desert - making them all into vegetarians. However the people craved meat, so in the end God gave in.

Jesus understrood the essence of the Torah Law to be centred on Love of God and Love for one another - and this is true. In particular Jesus was aware of the higher law that the Jews did not receive on Sinai.

Summing up:

The tablets were written by Moses. God may have had some input also, because God decided to back Moses up by punishing those who questioned Moses' authority. Basically God is supporting Moses authority, but the content of the Law definitely contains some human inventions.

The Bible is a primitive human record of divine events written from the standpoint of their culture and knowledge at the time. This view does not exclude the possibility that the human writers were inspired and guided by God to some extent, so that their record contains remarkable integrating patterns. It seems remarkable that God is benevolent enough to allow primitive society to formulate it's own laws - like a Father encouraging the first steps of a child.

The presence of subliminal integrating patterns says "God at work". The Jews were God's people, but all people start out as "children" by taking feeble steps full of errors.

The way God may guide the primitive writer might be through ideals, ideas, or perhaps through unconscious archetypes. It would be interesting to explore this mode of divine knowledge by looking at other instances in the Bible where God allowed Himself to be swayed by a human being, as if He was trying to draw out a response from them.

We notice that by the time of Isaiah, the primitive mind has evolved to an awareness of the higher law, God's law.

It would be interesting to explore this mode of inspiration more. It would be cool to discuss it with others and find Biblical examples.

joel

03-10-2011, 11:40 AM

Craig.Paardekooper

03-10-2011, 01:01 PM

The empirical evidence suggests two things -

1. that God was guiding the Hebrews, as is witnessed by the testimony of Jesus Christ, by the fulfilled prophecies and also the integrated patterns within the Bible. These all display the hand of God

2. but also that the Hebrews invented SOME of their laws, as witnessed by the primitive nature of those laws and the IMPOSSIBILITY that they come from an all-knowing God

Therefore, whilst God was guiding the Hebrews, He also allowed them enough independence to create laws for themselves - even laws that were imperfect. He wanted the Hebrews to find their way to the truth, like a child finding it's feet, rather than just thrust all the truth upon them.

God guided the steady development of moral awareness within the Hebrew minds, rather than just throwing down a perfect and complete law from the very start. This process of development is further evidenced by the changes during the Axial Age

Think how a teacher teaches maths. He hardly exposes grade 1 students to relativity in their first lesson. Rather he encourages and guides them - allowing them to make the steps themselves one at a time.

In Jesus we see a full realisation of God's Law.

It is possible to argue that Paul's writings are not perfect either. We nolonger have slavery, women have equal rights, not to mention other developments such as democracy, animal rights, a better justice system, etc.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2011, 02:15 PM

If Jesus was in error, in any way whatsoever, then, He missed the mark, and could not be the sacrifice for the sins of the world.

If on the other hand, in spite of the human impossibility of believing all that God said,.........He exercised perfect faith and provided the way to salvation, the truth of salvation, and the life of salvation.

If you question the validity of God's word, and carry it to a human conclusion, you will question the validity of the sacrificial death of God's Son, and the validity of the resurrection of Him from the dead........which will render your faith as vanity.

Joel
Hey there Joel, :yo:

I understand your reasoning, but I think there are some big problems with it.

First, how do you know that every word in the Bible is "God's Word"? The Bible doesn't even tell us which books should be included, let alone how we are supposed to interpret each and every word in each and every book that we accept as "Scripture." If you were a Catholic, you would have some additional books, and if you were Greek Orthodox, you would have even more. As far as I know, the only solid evidence for the 66-book Canon is the Bible Wheel, but hardly anyone knows about it, and even fewer care. That's why there is a never ending debate between Catholics and Protestants on this issue. It is simply impossible to successfully argue for or against the 66 book canon from within itself because we don't know, for example, if Esther is supposed to be included. The NT does not endorse it, so there is no way to know without some additional evidence such as the Bible Wheel.

And another HUGE problem is that you are presuming to tell God how he must produce and present "his book." What if God wanted to use fallible humans to produce a book that was genuinely and completely human to the point that he allowed it to even contained errors? What if it is a gross error to assert that everything in the Bible is "God's Word" and that God himself set it up so that only portions are literally "his word" and it is embedded in a human frame, just like the Word becoming flesh? Who are we to tell God that he could not do that? What if he had a real purpose for making the book truly human? Your doctrine about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible is a human doctrine. God never even defined "his word" as the 66 book canon, let alone telling us that everything in the book is "infallible and inerrant." This means that you are hanging the exceedingly heavy load of the Truth of Christ upon the weak pin of human opinion.

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2011, 03:28 PM

Hi Richard,

I agree with your post entirely. I have come to realise that Rose and yourself were correct in your empirical observations that the Laws of the Torah cannot possibly all come from God. There are some laws that DEFINITELY do not come from an all-knowing compassionate God. Rather they show EVERY evidence of coming from primitive man.

However I also agree that the Bible contains strong evidence that it's writings are guided by God. This evidence includes -

1. The support lent by Jesus Christ to the OT
2. The fulfilled prophecies in the OT
3. The integrated patterns of the Bible wheel

If God is guiding the Hebrews, but the content is in keeping with a primitive outlook to begin with, then it seems evident that God is guiding them step by step from primitive to a more consistent and perfect system of laws. However, the Jews showed resistance to this guiding and were slow to learn - getting fixated upon the original laws of Moses that had become institutionalised. Until we get to Isaiah and the prophets, when we see the emergence of a more advanced ethic - culminatng in Jesus

It was very hard for me to accept this point of view initially, because at one point this debate seemed overly antagonistic towards God and threatening to the faith which I cherish. However I now see your point and think that it is a great blessing to have this new understanding.

Thankyou Rose and Richard.

My apologies if I did not fully appreciate your views before.
Hey there Craig,

Great post! I understand how "scary" it can be to begin questioning our traditional understanding. The problem is that we don't know where the questions will lead, and many Christians act as if asking honest questions about what's really in the Bible was a sign of "lack of faith." Of course, that's why so many charlatans and con-men can make millions fleecing the flock. Folks have been taught not to think. They have been taught that mindless obedience and unquestioning dogmatism is "the faith" that saves them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Blind gullibility is destroys people. It saves no one.

Now as for your three points - you really got it. :thumb: Those points are strong evidence. I would add that the typology of the OT fulfilled in Christ is also a clear sign of "something" going on. There are plenty of reasons to feel confident about Christianity without inventing false doctrines about an "infallible and inerrant" Bible that is the "perfect word of God" in every way, including the laws like "eye for an eye" and "bitter water test for adultery" and "go kill all the men, women, and children, except the virgins." Think of the irony of it all. God is supposed to be so smart, but the libraries are filled with books written by relatively stupid humans "explaining" why all the contradictory, confusing, and immoral parts of the Bible aren't really "contradictory, confusing, and immoral." Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to simply assume that if the Bible really is from God, and he really is a lot smarter than we are, then we can have confidence that he must WANT us to question things or he would not have written the Bible the way he did?

That's the ultimate irony: Biblical Fundamentalism is fundamentally unbiblical!

God designed the Bible with a built-in "trigger" that causes the whole thing to explode when touched by a mature soul ready to accept the reality of what is seen, even when it contradicts what has been taught by the schoolmaster throughout the childhood under the "law" of religious tradition. But the explosion only destroys the constraining "walls" of the Law, just like Paul said:
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
And now we are free to admit what we really see. Faith in human doctrines about the Bible is not faith in God. Indeed, those human doctrines can often contradict and suppress genuine faith in God.

There is much to say. Much to explore. I'm glad you are here to share in the journey.

Richard

Clifford

03-10-2011, 09:48 PM

Bob May

03-10-2011, 10:30 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2011, 11:10 PM

If I tossed everything out everything in the bible that didn't make sense to me, it would be a very small book.

That is a very honest statement there Bob! I think it reveals more than you intended.

Bob May

03-11-2011, 05:13 AM

That is a very honest statement there Bob! I think it reveals more than you intended.

I'm all for more revelation. Sometimes I even amaze myself at what comes out of my mouth.

Rose

03-11-2011, 10:00 AM

I take what I call the "accomodationist" approach. I believe God gave those laws through Moses, but was accomodating the culture of that time to some extent. He knew they would not be able to keep his higher laws because of the stage of their moral and ethical development at that time. This seems to have support from Jesus when he said for example,

'You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. Matt 5:43-45.

He is setting aside the former for something that is better.

Here's another point to consider. Some of the laws of the OT are harsh according to our modern standards and we would never consider going back to them. But maybe they were still an improvement over what the people of the surrounding cultures practiced at that time.

It seems from the Bible that God leads people by stages and gives them only what they can handle at the time. This can be seen in our own individual lives. There are always some areas where we need to improve and if we allow, God he usually leads us in the right direction one step at a time.

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

Doing a little research on some of the "pagan" cultures of the time period of Abraham and Moses seems to reveal some pretty advanced civilizations, comparable to that of Hebrew people.

If we study the literature of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians, we can no longer believe the description of "pagan" religion that has long been part of Western tradition and is still often found in modern religious writing. Instead of capricious gods acting only in pursuit of their own desires, we meet deities concerned with the proper ordering of the universe and the regulation of history. Instead of divine cruelty and arrogance, we find deliberation and understanding. Instead of lawlessness and violence, we see a developed legal system and a long tradition of reflective jurisprudence. Instead of immoral attitudes and behavior, we find moral deliberation, philosophical speculation, and penitential prayer. Instead of wild orgiastic rites, we read of hymns, processions, sacrifices, and prayers. Instead of the benighted paganism of the Western imagination, cuneiform literature reveals to us an ethical polytheism that commands serious attention and respect.I know the big thing between God and the Hebrews was obedience, but when one looks at some of the laws that were supposedly given by God they seem pretty barbaric. Take for instance the punishment for doing work on the Sabbath - death - that seems pretty severe, or the punishment for adultery - death. Like I said, when one compares many of the laws given to the Jews with the earliest written law which is the Code of Hammurabi (1700 BC) we see many overlapping ideas, so cultural improvement doesn't appear to be valid argument.

What seems to be manifesting itself clearly is that much of what people take to be laws given from the one and only God, are no more than peoples ideas of what they perceived as coming from God.

Blessings,
Rose

CWH

03-11-2011, 10:32 AM

Rose

03-11-2011, 10:49 AM

So were today's laws in some countries barbaric....death penalty for smuggling or possession of narcotic drugs, death penalty for murder and blasphemy, stoning or death for adultery, jail for watching or possession of pornographic materials, jail and caning for petty crimes such as theft, fines for throwing litter and jaywalking etc. ....not much different from ancient times.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

You are right! There are still many, many barbaric laws in the world....but the point I was trying to make was that many of the laws we see written in the Bible and believed to have been given by God, are no more then laws taken from the surrounding pagan countries. For instance: The Code of Hammurabi which was written hundreds of years before Moses received the Ten Commandments, has many laws that are identical parallels to laws we find in the Bible, so it's pretty obvious they were copied.

Blessings,
Rose

CWH

03-11-2011, 11:36 AM

[QUOTE=Craig.Paardekooper;29282]I have been reading the book of Numbers. I was particularly dismayed by the Biblical method of detecting whether a woman has been unfaithful.

The method entails taking dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and mixing it with holy water. The woman then has to drink it. If she falls ill then she is guilty. If she does not fall ill then she is innocent.

With all the sacrifices taking place in the Tabernacle, it's floor would be covered with blood, excrement and dirt.

Most people would probably get ill, and so would be convicted of adultry - which fetched the death penalty.

It's absurd even to think that God's holy place such as the Tabernacle is so filthy. If God is the creator of ultraviolet rays and gamma rays, He could easily sterilized the Tabernacle. Besides the priests have the duty to clean the area and the Tabernacle daily. What you presented about the filthy Tabernacle is just speculation to suit your view. During ancient times there was no DNA test on semen found in the vaginal tract to determine adultery, how would you expect the ancient Jews to have visual evidence to condemn one for adultery? The dust from the floor of the Tabernacle were probably sterile and free from contaminants. And if one has a guilty conscience of adultery and drank the dust mixed with holy water, will feel ill psychologically, it is call psychosomatic effect. One who did not commit adultery and drank it will not suffer any psychosomatic effect.

Another thing that bothered me was the law that requires a person to clean themselves within 3 days if they have touched a dead body. In addition they have to sprinkle the ashes of a dead cow on themselves. Otherwise they have to be removed from the people of Israel.
It is normal medical routine to isolate or quarantine anyone suspected of suffering from dangerous infectious disease such as SARS, Tuberculosis, Leprosy etc. A healthcare worker is supposed to clean themselves with antiseptic solution when they have touched a dead body as part of infection control responsibility. How do you expect the ancient Jews to clean themselves after touching a dead body when they did not have antiseptic solution during their time? The best way then to clean themselves after touching the dead body was to isolate themselves for 3 days and to sprinkle ash on their body. Burnt ash is sterile carbon just like charcoal and it has some drying effect and dryness has an antiseptic effect. The ash is also a way to warn others not to come close to them or they may be cross-infected.

It seems odd to me that this law would be issued by an all knowing God, because if you touch a dead body you should wash straight away - not after 3 days. And sprinking the ashes of a dead cow has no effect on cleanness.
Nothing odd. It seems to me this was God's wisdom using natural way to disinfect people to prevent infections after they have toched a dead body based on the best available resources at their disposal. The sprinkling of ash serves as a contact precaution sign as people will avoid "dirty" people. There are some internet sites that claimed burnt ash has antiseptic effect. Some people even advocate using burnt ash as a cleanser to wash hands clean. Burnt ash is also well known as an insect repellent thus preventing spread of diseases from insects.

http://www.theleaven.com/V32/v32n13africa.html

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1054.html

So based on these two verses alone, the Bible furnishes us with proof that the Mosaic Law cannot have come from an all knowing being like God.
Untrue. It in fact shows the wisdom of God...BTW you are talking to a medical person.

These laws are primitive human inventions.
Yes but endorsed by a wise God.

It would be interesting to explore this mode of inspiration more. It would be cool to discuss it with others and find Biblical examples.
Show me some more examples from the OT and I will explain to you from the medical point of view. I have done some research on how the ancients treat diseases based on the OT.

Many Blessings.

CWH

03-11-2011, 01:03 PM

Hi CWH,

I also was considering the placebo/psychosomatic effect of having to eat a dust-water mixture that had been cursed.

If the dust was sterile then that would be like giving someone a neutral pill, and saying "If you lied, then the pill will make you ill".

However the Bible says the dust was taken from the floor of the Temple, and the floor was very bloody, even if they swept it and washed it every day.

The Tabernacle WAS as busy as any slaughter house. Consider the number of animals killed there on a daily basis.

We have a community of approximately 600,000 men and 600,000 women. Each woman has to sacrifice an animal each time she has a menstrual period. So each month we have 600,000 sacrifices due to menstrual periods alone. That does not count all the other sacrifices. Already we are talking about 20,000 sacrifices per day. Then consider all the other things that required a sacrifice for sins....

It would be hard for any cleaners to keep the Tabernacle sterile with this number of deaths per day. Each one requiring the cutting of the throat, blood squirting in different directions - the animals defacating in fright during the procedure.

Along comes a priest and takes some dirt from the floor, adds a bit of water, and says "Drink this. If you don't get seriously ill, this will prove that you are innocent."

So we cannot assume that it was sterile.

Effectively, this was "trial by ordeal", similar to the Witch trials.

Precisely, if so many animals were killed as sacrifice on the Tabernacle, then the Tabernacle must be very filthy and was a source of infection, yet no one seemed to suffer or die from food poisoning which we call gastroenteritis as recorded from the OT. Perhaps God using his divine power made the Tabernacle sterile. It is recorded in Exodus about the cloud that covers the Tabernacle day and night.... sounds like fumigation or perhaps God's divine power in cleansing the Tabernacle:

Exodus 40:34
[ The Glory of the LORD ] Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:35
Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:36
In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out;

Exodus 40:38
So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels.

Some food for thoughts.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2011, 01:57 PM

Precisely, if so many animals were killed as sacrifice on the Tabernacle, then the Tabernacle must be very filthy and was a source of infection, yet no one seemed to suffer or die from food poisoning which we call gastroenteritis as recorded from the OT. Perhaps God using his divine power made the Tabernacle sterile. It is recorded in Exodus about the cloud that covers the Tabernacle day and night.... sounds like fumigation or perhaps God's divine power in cleansing the Tabernacle:

Or maybe space-aliens healed them with their superior technology! When we start making up stuff, there is no end.

But there is plenty of mention of "plagues" from the Lord in the OT. That's what killed the 70,000 after David took the census:

1 Chronicles 21:10 Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. 11 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee 12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me. 13 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man. 14 ¶ So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
Later, the pestilence sent by God is called a "plague." Maybe God had been using the alter to grow lots of bacteria to use when he wanted to inflict a plague on his people? It must have been very virulent since it was able to kill seventy thousand strong soldiers in three days!

Like I said, when we start making up stuff, there is no end.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2011, 09:49 PM

If the dust was sterile then that would be like giving someone a neutral pill, and saying "If you lied, then the pill will make you ill".

However the Bible says the dust was taken from the floor of the Temple, and the floor was very bloody, even if they swept it and washed it every day.

When the law was given in Numbers the Tabernacle had a dirt floor so it would have been muddy mess soaked with blood and guts from the sacrifices. I simply could not think of anything filthier or more pathogenic, and could not imagine making any woman drink it merely because her husband was jealous without proof! It was a filthy, disgusting, irrational, and barbaric trial by ordeal, like the witch trials. It could not have been commanded by the true God despite the fact that the Bible plainly states exactly that.

CWH

03-12-2011, 01:09 AM

When the law was given in Numbers the Tabernacle had a dirt floor so it would have been muddy mess soaked with blood and guts from the sacrifices. I simply could not think of anything filthier or more pathogenic, and could not imagine making any woman drink it merely because her husband was jealous without proof! It was a filthy, disgusting, irrational, and barbaric trial by ordeal, like the witch trials. It could not have been commanded by the true God despite the fact that the Bible plainly states exactly that.

This is pure speculation, how do you know the Tabernacle had a dirt floor, muddy soaked with blood and guts from the sacrifice? have you seen it? Tabernacle means God's dwelling, does God want to dwell in such a filthy place? Would you want to dwell in such a place? Would men present such a filthy place for God's dwelling....how disrespectful! I am sure people will clean the Tabernacle to ensure that what they offer to God is clean. God could easily got rid of the mess and filth in an instant....or are you doubting the ability of God who also create ultraviolet rays and Gamma rays that could kill germs in an instant. I wonder what is the function of those clouds that covered the Tabernacle day and night? It clearly states that it was from God and not some man-made clouds or smoke. To interpret otherwise is to twist the meaning of the words beyond recognition See the words in bold:

Exodus 40:34
[ The Glory of the LORD ] Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:35
Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:36
In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out;

Exodus 40:38
So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels.

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2011, 11:07 AM

This is pure speculation, how do you know the Tabernacle had a dirt floor ... God could easily got rid of the mess and filth in an instant....
Cheow,

I think you need to research the meaning of "speculation." You challenge the obvious fact that Tabernacle had a dirt floor and then speculate that God could have performed a miracle never mentioned once in the Bible or in history!

There is no need to go to such extremes to defend God from what is in the Bible Cheow. Let us simply open our eyes and see what is written.

This is pure speculation, how do you know the Tabernacle had a dirt floor, muddy soaked with blood and guts from the sacrifice? have you seen it? Tabernacle means God's dwelling, does God want to dwell in such a filthy place? Would you want to dwell in such a place? Would men present such a filthy place for God's dwelling....how disrespectful!

The Law states:

Leviticus 1:3 'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. 4 'And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 'And he shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 'He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 'And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire.
The whole area around the "doorway of the tent of meeting" was splattered with the blood and guts of thousands of slaughtered animals. There is no way you could walk past this mess and through the doorway into the "tent of meeting" without tracking it in with you on your shoes.

As for "disrespect" - it is the Bible that presents this stinking bloody mess at the entrance to the "tent of meeting." I'm just reporting what the Bible actually states. I find it curious in the extreme that Christians cannot see what is actually written in the Book they believe to be the very Word of God! If the Bible is the Word of God, then we should wholeheartedly receive whatever is written in it, should we not?

I am sure people will clean the Tabernacle to ensure that what they offer to God is clean. God could easily got rid of the mess and filth in an instant....or are you doubting the ability of God who also create ultraviolet rays and Gamma rays that could kill germs in an instant. I wonder what is the function of those clouds that covered the Tabernacle day and night? It clearly states that it was from God and not some man-made clouds or smoke. To interpret otherwise is to twist the meaning of the words beyond recognition See the words in bold:

Exodus 40:34
[ The Glory of the LORD ] Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:35
Moses could not enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

Exodus 40:36
In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out;

Exodus 40:38
So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels.

Many Blessings.
The fact that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle does not contradict any word that I have written. I have not twisted anything.

The mess of bloody animal sacrifices cannot be denied Cheow. It's just a fact of reality.

All the best.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2011, 11:10 AM

The Dirt Floor of the Tabernacle

This is pure speculation, how do you know the Tabernacle had a dirt floor, muddy soaked with blood and guts from the sacrifice? have you seen it? Tabernacle means God's dwelling, does God want to dwell in such a filthy place? Would you want to dwell in such a place? Would men present such a filthy place for God's dwelling....how disrespectful! I am sure people will clean the Tabernacle to ensure that what they offer to God is clean.In response, here is a quote -

Nevertheless, there was one unattractive aspect of the inside the tabernacle – the floor. It would seem, with all the elaborate and painstaking instructions given to construct the tabernacle, that it would have a floor consistent with the rest of the structure. However, this was not so. The floor was simply the dirt or dust of the desert where the Israelites camped.See http://www.pursuingtheword.com/floor.htm

The ark rested on the dirt floor of the Holy of Holies with its four gold rings that the gold poles were inserted through and left permanently in position.
See http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Ark_of_the_Covenant.htm

Excellent research Craig. Thanks.

:signthankspin:

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2011, 11:15 AM

One writer has recently argued that the procedure has a rational basis, envisioning punishment only upon clear proof of pregnancy (a swelling belly) or venereal disease (a rotting thigh).

Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: Four Thousand Years of Courtroom Drama (Random House, 2006), p.25.

Though this is a possible interpretation, it would only be valid if the woman was not sleeping with her husband before hand - since if a woman was sleeping with her husband, then the baby could still be the husbands child, so a swelling belly would not prove guilt. If she is still condemned then she would be stoned together with her husbands unborn baby.

What is more, it is possible that a the husband could have passed on the venereal disease himself.

So the two signs of guilt are actually proof of nothing - unless it could also be proved that -

1. The husband did not have venereal disease or
2. The husband did not have any sexual contact with his wife before the test.

Since neither of these additional tests are performed, the biblical test does not work.

And even if the husband did not have any sexual contact with his wife before hand, if the woman's belly still swells, this could be due to the putrid water that she was forced to consume.

And even if her belly does not swell or her legs waste away, then that does not prove her innocence. She may have had protected sex (coitus interuptus) or simply have a strong immune system or just got lucky because the Rabbi did not add sufficient toxic dirt to the water that time.

Also Rabbis would be in control of the outcome. A Rabbi might add only a few grains of dust from the cleanest spot on the floor, or he might add a good handful of dirt scraped directly from the most putrid places around the altar - depending upon whether he liked the person - whether they paid enough temple tax - whether he liked women in general, whether he was a misanthrope etc. (Given the willingness of the Levites to slaughter their own families and friends and neighbours, we might suspect that atleast some of them were misanthropes.) Consequently the Rabbi would be able to determine who lived or died. Of course, if a Rabbi truely believed that God could protect the innocent woman from the toxic dirt, then the Rabbi would feel no guilt in making the drink as toxic as possible for people he didn't like - since it would be down to God to protect the innocent from the poison.
Those are powerful arguments. Well done. :thumb:

The attempt to argue that "swelling of the belly" meant "pregnant" is patently absurd.

Clifford

03-12-2011, 04:31 PM

Rose

03-12-2011, 05:48 PM

I think something important has been overlooked in all these posts. In Number 5:16 it says;

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD.

This is telling us she is standing in the presence of the Lord. If she is innocent God will supernaturally purify the drinking water and prevent her from getting sick. If she is guilty then the water would make her sick.

If you recall on their journey out of Egypt God supernaturally made bitter water fit to drink on one occasion.

Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water. When they came to Marah, they could not drink its water because it was bitter. (That is why the place is called Marah. So the people grumbled against Moses, saying, 'What to drink?'

Then Moses cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became fit to drink. Exodus 15:22-25.

So we see this would have scriptural precedence.

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

The whole process seems pretty backward to me!

First off, if the Lord was really there they wouldn't have to go through that whole ritual to begin with.

Secondly, it takes two to tango! If the woman was really guilty then there was a man that was equally guilty, but of course there is no mention of that!

Thirdly, if the woman is innocent and her husband is just the jealous type, she had to go through a horrible humiliating, disgusting ritual just to satisfy a jealous husband....condoned by the Lord. :eek:

Fourthly, the whole situation looks very much like many of the pagan rituals that were going on in cultures around them, using magic potions to reveal secrets, with the women ending up suffering the most, as usual!

Rose

Clifford

03-12-2011, 07:36 PM

Hi Clifford,

The whole process seems pretty backward to me!

First off, if the Lord was really there they wouldn't have to go through that whole ritual to begin with.

Secondly, it takes two to tango! If the woman was really guilty then there was a man that was equally guilty, but of course there is no mention of that!

Thirdly, if the woman is innocent and her husband is just the jealous type, she had to go through a horrible humiliating, disgusting ritual just to satisfy a jealous husband....condoned by the Lord. :eek:

Fourthly, the whole situation looks very much like many of the pagan rituals that were going on in cultures around them, using magic potions to reveal secrets, with the women ending up suffering the most, as usual!

Rose

Hi Rose,

As I said in a previous post I think God was accommodating some of their cultural practices. In this instance we see He is making sure an innocent person is not condemned. So its an improvement over how they previously did it.

Clifford

Rose

03-12-2011, 08:09 PM

Hi Rose,

As I said in a previous post I think God was accommodating some of their cultural practices. In this instance we see He is making sure an innocent person is not condemned. So its an improvement over how they previously did it.

Clifford

My question would be: what did it improve upon? Seems to me like the woman was the loser any way you look at it.

Rose

CWH

03-13-2011, 07:32 AM

[QUOTE=RAM;29388]Cheow,

I think you need to research the meaning of "speculation." You challenge the obvious fact that Tabernacle had a dirt floor and then speculate that God could have performed a miracle never mentioned once in the Bible or in history!

There is no need to go to such extremes to defend God from what is in the Bible Cheow. Let us simply open our eyes and see what is written.

What?....Never mentioned in ther Bible? See what Jesus did to cure a blind person by using His spittle and mud from the ground in Gospel of John. Would you want to be treated of an eye infection in this way using someone's spittle and mud? Obviously, Jesus spittle and the mud had a divine curative effect.

6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 'Go,' he told him, 'wash in the Pool of Siloam' (this word means 'Sent'). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

The Law states:

Leviticus 1:3 'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. 4 'And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 'And he shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 'He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 'And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire.
The whole area around the "doorway of the tent of meeting" was splattered with the blood and guts of thousands of slaughtered animals. There is no way you could walk past this mess and through the doorway into the "tent of meeting" without tracking it in with you on your shoes.
Yes and it may have been sterilized by the cloud and glory of God daily. Glory means light and Ultraviolet light and Gamma rays may be of mention that could sterilized the Tabernacle.

Exodus 40:38
So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels.

As for "disrespect" - it is the Bible that presents this stinking bloody mess at the entrance to the "tent of meeting." I'm just reporting what the Bible actually states. I find it curious in the extreme that Christians cannot see what is actually written in the Book they believe to be the very Word of God! If the Bible is the Word of God, then we should wholeheartedly receive whatever is written in it, should we not?
Where in the Bible did it says that the Tabernacle was a stink? Would God want to stay in a stinky, filthy place? Would you or any people want to visit a stinky bloody place, not to say sacrifice the animals there? I really can't see what is actually written in the Book which they believe to be the very Word of God....anything about a stinky, bloody Tabernacle? Would God's people present a stinky filthy place for God without being disrectful to God?

Many Blessings.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2011, 09:49 AM

Cheow,

I think you need to research the meaning of "speculation." You challenge the obvious fact that Tabernacle had a dirt floor and then speculate that God could have performed a miracle never mentioned once in the Bible or in history!

There is no need to go to such extremes to defend God from what is in the Bible Cheow. Let us simply open our eyes and see what is written.
What?....Never mentioned in ther Bible? See what Jesus did to cure a blind person by using His spittle and mud from the ground in Gospel of John. Would you want to be treated of an eye infection in this way using someone's spittle and mud? Obviously, Jesus spittle and the mud had a divine curative effect.

Hey there Cheow,

You missed my point. You know that I know that God performs miracles in the Bible, so that was obviously not my point. We were talking about your speculation that the pillar of cloud over the tabernacle was used by God to cleanse that tabernacle. I said that was a speculation that is never mentioned in the Bible. My point stands.

The Law states:
Leviticus 1:3 'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. 4 'And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 'And he shall slay the young bull before the LORD; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 'He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 'And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire.
The whole area around the "doorway of the tent of meeting" was splattered with the blood and guts of thousands of slaughtered animals. There is no way you could walk past this mess and through the doorway into the "tent of meeting" without tracking it in with you on your shoes. Yes and it may have been sterilized by the cloud and glory of God daily. Glory means light and Ultraviolet light and Gamma rays may be of mention that could sterilized the Tabernacle.

God doesn't need to use natural means like Gamma rays to sterilize anything. If he was going to do a miracle like creating Gamma rays, he could have skipped that step and merely sterilized things directly by miracle. The purpose of the pillars of fire and cloud was to be a sign of his presence for the people of Israel. If there was any other purpose, it was not mentioned anywhere in the Bible (like I already explained) so we shouldn't speculate about it.

Where in the Bible did it says that the Tabernacle was a stink? Would God want to stay in a stinky, filthy place? Would you or any people want to visit a stinky bloody place, not to say sacrifice the animals there? I really can't see what is actually written in the Book which they believe to be the very Word of God....anything about a stinky, bloody Tabernacle? Would God's people present a stinky filthy place for God without being disrectful to God?

Everyone knows (or should know) that there is a lot of stink around slaughtered animals. The fact that thousands were being slaughtered in the same area around the door of the tabernacle inevitably implies that there was a terrible mess of decaying splattered blood and guts in that area. There is no way around this fact except to invoke a miracle that is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

I have merely stated the facts of reality. The reason they seem "disrespectful" to you is because the facts are disgusting but Christians traditionally just plug their noses and "look the other way" when confronted with the facts about what the Bible really states.

All the best.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2011, 09:54 AM

Hello Clifford,

I am worried about your explanation. The miracle that God performed at Marah was a singular miracle like the parting of the Red Sea.

Are we to expect that God will perform the same miracle every single time a man is jealous of his wife throughout all the 1521 years of Jewish history. During all these years, a woman has to eat poison. Wow.

Hey there Craig,

That is a powerful explanation. We know we have a serious problem in the Bible if the only solution is to claim continuous acts of divine intervention over a span of many centuries! Occam has lost his razor!

All the best,

Richard

Rose

03-13-2011, 10:07 AM

[QUOTE]

Where in the Bible did it says that the Tabernacle was a stink? Would God want to stay in a stinky, filthy place? Would you or any people want to visit a stinky bloody place, not to say sacrifice the animals there? I really can't see what is actually written in the Book which they believe to be the very Word of God....anything about a stinky, bloody Tabernacle? Would God's people present a stinky filthy place for God without being disrectful to God?

Many Blessings.Hi Cheow,

He is an example from Josephus of the huge numbers of animals that it took to satisfy the Passover sacrifice in the 1st century.
Josephus—Wars of the Jews book 6

9:2....And that this city could contain so many people in it, is manifest by that number of them which was taken under Cestius, who being desirous of informing Nero of the power of the city, who otherwise was disposed to contemn that nation, entreated the high priests, if the thing were possible, to take the number of their whole multitude. So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a company, found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts to two millions seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons that were pure and holy;

There is no way 256,500 animals can be slain and there not be a massive amount of blood and guts splattered everywhere....no matter how one looks at it there is a lot of filth!

Rose

Clifford

03-13-2011, 01:29 PM

My question would be: what did it improve upon? Seems to me like the woman was the loser any way you look at it.

Rose

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. Numbers 5:27-28

Looks like a big difference in the outcome to me. On the one hand if she is guilty she will miscarry but if she is innocent she will be able to have children.

Clifford

Rose

03-13-2011, 03:20 PM

If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. Numbers 5:27-28

Looks like a big difference in the outcome to me. On the one hand if she is guilty she will miscarry but if she is innocent she will be able to have children.

Clifford

Originally Posted by Clifford http://biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=29408#post29408)
Hi Rose,

As I said in a previous post I think God was accommodating some of their cultural practices. In this instance we see He is making sure an innocent person is not condemned. So its an improvement over how they previously did it.

CliffordThe improvement I was speaking of was what you quoted in your post. My whole point being is that this is a totally unjust and unfair law supposedly given by God that caters to the jealousy of a man, and there is no equivalent law pertaining to a woman who may be suspicious that her husband is having an adulterous affair.

I see no righteousness in accusing a woman and assuming she is guilty by making her drink of a potentially deadly potion all because of a jealous husband!

Rose

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

03-14-2011, 10:35 PM

Hi Endtimes,

I understand the context from which it was written, and Paul's desire to see growth in those he was speaking to, but it seems that more harm has been done to the cause of women then good....they had it hard enough as it was. It would have been far better for Paul to have only preached "love one another" like Jesus, and John than to introduce a concept that so easily slipped into men abusing women.

Blessings,
Rose

I would think that this section could also be used by women to abuse their men. Earlier it says that men should give themselves to their wives as Crhist did the chruch. Have you not heard of the 'Honeydoo lest" with the verses of Eph 5 pasted on the fridge door?

It's important to view this passage in the context of the teachign of the indwelling Spirit of Christ FIRST, in order to guard against a perspective of a codified and legalized 'religious' marriage, similar to conditional obedience to law.

Both 'submissions' must come from the heart indwelt and filled with His Spirit and knowledge.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-15-2011, 04:55 PM

I would think that this section could also be used by women to abuse their men. Earlier it says that men should give themselves to their wives as Crhist did the chruch. Have you not heard of the 'Honeydoo lest" with the verses of Eph 5 pasted on the fridge door?

That's a pretty disturbing response. Just take a look at the history of the how women have been treated for the last 2000 years in Christians societies. They were treated as property for most of that time, and got the right to vote in just last century. No one could seriously suggest that the Bible could be used by women to abuse men.

Craig.Paardekooper

03-21-2011, 02:31 PM

Hi Rose n' Rich

I thought you might enjoy this link to lectures in Old Testament held at Yale.
The first lecture touches upon the inspiration issue, and I am sure you will like it. It is interesting to see what they are teaching at Yale, since it is a very prestigious university.

I downloaded the lectures as MP3s so I can listen to them on my ipod as I stroll through the park.

Link - Yale Lectures (http://www.academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible)

Rose

03-22-2011, 09:09 AM

Craig.Paardekooper

03-25-2011, 12:37 PM

Dear Rose n' Rich

If there are moral or factual errors in the Bible then , because the doctrine of inerrancy is never stated in the Bible, we should naturally adopt the simplest explanation (in accord with Occams Razor) that

"the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events."

In other words, God has entered history, but humans have recorded those events in their own way - adding their own interpretations in many places. So when the Bible declares "And the Lord spoke to Moses" it is recording that event as a tabloid might record it today - somethings are right, somethings are mistaken, and events are interpreted in the light of their primitive knowledge and superstitions.

This explanation still allows that God dealt directly with the Jews, but allows for all errors, both moral and factual without diminishing God thereby.

However, if this is the case, then how do we explain gematria such as Genesis 1, or patterns such as the Bible Wheel?

Whilst the Bible is written completely by humans about divine events in Jewish history, God also placed signs within the writings themselves to show that He really was working through Jewish History.

However, if there are errors in the Bible then this sign cannot mean "Yes, everything the Bible says comes from me". At most it can only mean "Yes, they are talking about me"

In Summary

The Bible is a collection of books written by ordinary human beings about some extraordinary events - namely the intrusion of God into the history of a nation. Like any tabloid of today, the people who wrote about these events made factual errors, and also their records were influenced by their own primitive interpretations of events, personal political views etc.

In some cases they attribute natural disasters to God, in other instances they attribute human laws to God.

We don't stop reading newspapers simply because they are not perfect. In the same way, we should not discard the Bible simply because it was written by human beings.

The Bible is a collection of ordinary human documents about extraordinary events. In accordance with Occams Razor I shall adopt this point of view - since it is the simplest explanation - and it protects the dignity of God from the attribution of errors - and in fact it is the most natural explanation especially in the absence of any direct statement for the inerrancy of scripture.

Some interesting resources

Here is a web page concerning this issue - Web Page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_insp.htm)

Also, there is a really good podcast of the whole of "Varieties of Religious Experience" By William James.

Varieties of Religious Experience (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SpiritualClassics/~5/5fqoxSoQ5zc/SC-020207.mp3)

You can download this audio podcast to your computer, by right clicking on the link and choosing "save target as". It is in mp3 format. Then transfer it onto your ipod, so you can listen to it anytime