Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Quasar1011]

There's a huge Us vs. Them undercurrent in the early Old Testament. If you weren't the Chosen People, God was not on your side.

Genesis 18:18
Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.

Sounds to me like God was trying to bless all peoples of Earth, using one nation of "chosen people".

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Here is a thread dedicated to my questions about the Bible and its God . I have started reading the Bible in its dead-tree form in the past few days , and I want to ask questions to Christians regarding the interpretation they give to certain passages which , to me , seem a bit strange or otherwise inappropriate .

I'll begin with a query I have around the part I am now reading . In Exodus 6.3 to 6.5 , God appears to be telling Moses that he will deliberately harden the heart of the Pharoah so that Egypt will suffer plagues in order that Egypt may know that the LORD is the LORD . This seems incompatible with the Christian ideal of a loving and kind god . Could a Christian please clarify ( this is a request I will be making a number of times in this thread ) ?

The Old Testament is very "vengeful God" oriented, especially in the beginning. Once you get into the more personalized books, the ones that follow just one person, such as David or Job, it sort of dies off. Back then, they ( remember, "They" were Jews at this time, not Christians as we think of it) had to sacrifice goats and sheep on an altar atop a mountain to appease God; that is where the whole story of Abraham comes from, and why he was asked by God to kill his son ( which he wound up not having to do). Because he was willing to give his son for God without question, he is the Father of the Hebrew faith. Yea a little of topic but i was on a roll.

Oh, and feel free to ask away, I know a lot of the Bible doesn't make sense, but that's because it's a mix of allegory and parable, with a little fable thrown into the mix. The part about the Life of Christ, ie the Gospels, ie the first four books of the New Testament, are considered to be accurate, as is much of the New Testament, excluding the last two books, of course.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That way he wouldn't have had to drown six hundred thousand Egyptian soldiers who were only following orders.". Now counterfactual history is generally bunk, but I think it's an interesting idea.

I hope you meant 6,000 or 600 soldiers and not 600,000.

600,000 men, in a column six men across is about 56 miles long. Since a typical army could march at most 20 miles a day, you couldn't get an army that size into any sort of pursuit. On any given day only a third or so of the army would make it out of camp. For some maen the days march would merely be across the camp when they would again have to settle down for the night.

Additionally, there would be no way to feed such an army at that time in history outside of a city. Adding wagons of food and fodder to the army only makes the problem worse.

The likely pursuit, if there was one, would be by a few hundred men equipped to move quickly.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

typical army could march at most 20 miles a day.

i dont mean to take your statement out of context to remove its intent, but rather to ask a question: is this typical of all armies, or just an ungodly number like 600,000? I wonder, how far could Napoleon's armies move in a day at the new 120 beats per minute?

 

[Birdjaguar]

i dont mean to take your statement out of context to remove its intent, but rather to ask a question: is this typical of all armies, or just an ungodly number like 600,000? I wonder, how far could Napoleon's armies move in a day at the new 120 beats per minute?

When pressed maybe 25-30 under good condtions; typically 10 to 12 miles per day. The road net is an important factor.

Here is an extreme case:
Prior to Austerlitz in 1805 (the peak of the the Grand Army) some of Davout's troops marched 80 miles from Vienna to the battlefield in 55 hours so they would not miss the battle. The time is the total time including stops. About 35 of those hours were spent marching. For the last stretch the colonel gave them all "an abundance of wine" so they were fit for the final push.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I hope you meant 6,000 or 600 soldiers and not 600,000.

600,000 men, in a column six men across is about 56 miles long. Since a typical army could march at most 20 miles a day, you couldn't get an army that size into any sort of pursuit. On any given day only a third or so of the army would make it out of camp. For some maen the days march would merely be across the camp when they would again have to settle down for the night.

Additionally, there would be no way to feed such an army at that time in history outside of a city. Adding wagons of food and fodder to the army only makes the problem worse.

The likely pursuit, if there was one, would be by a few hundred men equipped to move quickly.

Woops. Wrong group, it was 600 000 Israelites who got across and started celebrating... silly me. (Exodus 12:37.)

 

[batteryacid]

there is indeed a lot of sex and murder in the bible-I was really off balanced by some of those stories when I was a kid

- I just wonder: Shouldn´t then the bible be rated "R" according to US standards?

And why are conservatives, who give a lot on the bible, so easily offended by something as harmless as some free breasts ( topic in some threads this week) when they read about murder, sex, killing of the son, butchering the father, seducing the oncle etc. before they go to sleep ?

Is there some decent conservative, god lovin´ pal around who can explain me this contradiction ??

 

[Sidhe]

Writing isn't pornographic and comes under different laws, there are plenty of books on my local bookstand that I wouldn't let kids read, but a five year old could still buy them, apparently imagining sick acts inspired by books is fine but actually seeing them is not? It's a crazy mixed up world we live in.

 

[aneeshm]

My first query stands answered , as many Christians on this board have given their opinions . My next query is :

Exodus 34.12 to 34.16 :

12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

This passage seems to me incredibly intolerant of polytheist idol-worshippers , such as the Hindus . Does this mean that no understanding is possible between Hindus and Christians ? Does it mean that the Christian God does not accept Hinduism as a true religion ? It tells Christians to "break the altars" of others , to "smash their sacred stones" . Is such behaviour acceptable by any standard of decency ?

I ask - why does God say this ?

 

[Sidhe]

Don't forget us agnostics

The lord our God is a jealous God. This is particularly demonstrated here, God will except no other false Gods before him and is keen that there heretical houses be smashed to dust, idolatry is expressly forbidden by the ten commandments. This is a core tennant of Christianity that prevailed 'till the 20th century and in the more backward religions still prevails to this day, that there is no God but God and all idol worshipers or polytheistic religions are false is a truism to the Abrahamic faiths, it's generally burried under PC sentiments these days, or in the big Christian churches it's been cast aside for a more enlightend approach, I can't speak for the Jewish people but I'd imagine it's simmilar, even now though a seed of superiority still exists if you look closely enough.

Jesus' message again supplants this, now it's about tolerance of other faiths and the benign spreading of a message to all. But it took nearly 2000 years for the faiths to catch up with the ancient tennant generally.

In old books of the 19th 18th century, I've seen Hindus referred to as savages and godless heathens, as a matter of interest. There was a core of distrust in Christianity for the Hindui faith in fact any faith that did not embrace God, up untill quite recently. Take heart we live in more enlightened times and that atheists don't care what you worship generally as there all as bad as each other

 

[classical_hero]

Exodus 34:14,15 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 after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

The simple reason is so that they would not lose focus off God and go after the gods that were around them. In fact the very first Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The simple answer is that God is the True God. Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

 

[Sidhe]

It's interesting to note though that this idea of any other God being wicked and false has caused more wars and death than perhaps any other reason in the holy land. It's one of the reasons I give for God being a human invention, because this tennant in itself seems to reflect outwards our inherently violent and warlike nature, it merely conveniently places it in the hands of another power, to assuage guilt to encourage the masses to war without consequence for it is God's will and we are just? If not what is the point of this tennant?

Again as I said at the start the Old Testament seems positively archaic and bereft of the expression and self improvement of the New Testament, they are very different and it's very difficult to equate the two Gods, this is a sign that as society grows then so does it's God. Is God a reflection of us or we of him?

Someone mentioned earlier that Christianity started off as a cult worshipping human sacrifice which was put aside by Gods commandment that no longer should people be required to make sacrafice to him. This fundemental shift in approach seems to explain there root hatred of religions that still use scacrifice, these idolators, perhaps they find it barbaric, ironically enough

 

[Chieftess]

I'll begin with a query I have around the part I am now reading . In Exodus 7.3 to 7.5 , God appears to be telling Moses that he will deliberately harden the heart of the Pharoah so that Egypt will suffer plagues in order that Egypt may know that the LORD is the LORD . This seems incompatible with the Christian ideal of a loving and kind god . Could a Christian please clarify ( this is a request I will be making a number of times in this thread ) ?

I know this was answered, but I'll add my two cents. It's like a loving parent who would punish their child if they did something wrong. Now, true, a parent doesn't give their kid a plague or something, but on the scale of nations, that's what has to be done to get leaders (and people) to notice. If you notice, atleast in modern society, disasters tend to bring people closer together, and more religious as a result (typically in the short term until selective amnesia takes over again). Egypt was also the enemy of Israel, too.

My next query is :

Exodus 34.12 to 34.16 :

12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

This passage seems to me incredibly intolerant of polytheist idol-worshippers , such as the Hindus . Does this mean that no understanding is possible between Hindus and Christians ? Does it mean that the Christian God does not accept Hinduism as a true religion ? It tells Christians to "break the altars" of others , to "smash their sacred stones" . Is such behaviour acceptable by any standard of decency ?

I ask - why does God say this ?

Of course it's supposed to be pre-monotheism! God wanted his people to obey his commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.". True, in the modern society, we don't go around breaking things (note - Fundies love lines like what you just quoted and they take it to the extreme). One thing you have to remember is, this was back in the Old Testament (back around 1500BC or so). And yes, Christians do feel their religion is the only true religion (or faith - Catholics especially). After all, if they didn't, why would they even be Christians?


Think of it this way....

Religion is like a discipline. If you took away one rule every X years, soon you'll be left with no rules. No discipline.

 

[aneeshm]

Exodus 34:14,15 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 after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

The simple reason is so that they would not lose focus off God and go after the gods that were around them. In fact the very first Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The simple answer is that God is the True God. Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

You're not answering my question about the intolerant bit - 34.13 , where the express command is to destroy the places of worship of people like the Hindus . Could you please address that ?

Another thing - does calling your God the living God mean that all other Gods are false and non-living ? That therefore , intolerance against them is justified ? And is it not insulting to call other people's worship of their Gods "whoring" ( a thing I find rather repulsive ) ?

 

[GenMarshall]

You're not answering my question about the intolerant bit - 34.13 , where the express command is to destroy the places of worship of people like the Hindus . Could you please address that ?

Another thing - does calling your God the living God mean that all other Gods are false and non-living ? That therefore , intolerance against them is justified ? And is it not insulting to call other people's worship of their Gods "whoring" ( a thing I find rather repulsive ) ?

I use both the NAB and the Douay-Rheims Bible. However, my translation and wording is way different from yours.

Beware thou never join in friendship with the inhabitants of that land, which may be thy ruin: But destroy their altars, break their statues, and cut down their groves: Adore not any strange god. The Lord his name is Jealous, he is a jealous God. Make no covenant with the men of those countries lest, when they have committed fornication with their gods, and have adored their idols, some one call thee to eat of the things sacrificed. Neither shalt thou take of their daughters a wife for thy son, lest after they themselves have committed fornication, they make thy sons also to commit fornication with their gods.

This was way back during the 1500BCish timespan. God wanted his followers to obey his commandments that Moses has given to the Israelites (Even the Israelites have said that they would follow God's words in Exodus 19:8 "And all the people answered together: All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do."). If you remember when the tribe was down at the foot of the mountan, waiting for Moses to come down. There was a certan event that happened when the Israelites were growing tired of waiting and decided to create the Golden Calf and started to worship it which furiated Moses (God notified Moses at the sumit "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Go, get thee down: thy people, which thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt, hath sinned. They have quickly strayed from the way which thou didst shew them: and they have made to themselves a molten calf, and have adored it, and sacrificing victims to it, have said: These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 32:7-8) and smashed the first set of the commandments and destroyed the Golden Calf. Plus it served as a preventive measure since over time many of the Israelites have assimulated into other tribal units and adopted their gods. As evident in Numbers 31:1-41.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, it's brutally intolerant.

But remember that Christians follow the New Testament, too, and take the entire book when dealing with other religions. They consider the Hindu to be (at best) false and (at worst) a deception by an evil opponent. But there are hundreds of commands to be loving in the New Testament, so don't get too angry at the OT (wait till Job, that one pissed me off)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Israel was a chosen people, in the sense that God would use them to carry out His plans on earth. But to do that they had to be faithful to Him. Living in a land full of "pagan" religions with more . . . interesting religious rituals, there was always a temptation to abandon God and go with the other religions. Thus God had to be quite forceful to keep their attention on Him.

But that is not the situation now. There is no reason for Christians, or modern Jews for that matter, to be fearful or mistrusting of polytheistic religions such as Hinduism. (I know, polytheism isn't quite the right word, but it is from a Christian perspective.) Thus there is no excuse for religious intolerance - there is no danger of the entire nation of believers falling away from God. Sadly, this fact has been lost on some Christians.

 

[Sidhe]

Yes, it's brutally intolerant.

But remember that Christians follow the New Testament, too, and take the entire book when dealing with other religions. They consider the Hindu to be (at best) false and (at worst) a deception by an evil opponent. But there are hundreds of commands to be loving in the New Testament, so don't get too angry at the OT (wait till Job, that one pissed me off)

Oh really it's my personal favourite, nice little parable. It's Got Satan as a lead player and God and it's quite a deep tale IMO. Although maybe we should wait until he gets to that one?

Some christians place the old testament above the new, in my eyes this makes them something distinctly non Christian, but hey these ancients are a very small minority thank God

 

[Elrohir]

there is indeed a lot of sex and murder in the bible-I was really off balanced by some of those stories when I was a kid

- I just wonder: Shouldn´t then the bible be rated "R" according to US standards?

And why are conservatives, who give a lot on the bible, so easily offended by something as harmless as some free breasts ( topic in some threads this week) when they read about murder, sex, killing of the son, butchering the father, seducing the oncle etc. before they go to sleep ?

Is there some decent conservative, god lovin´ pal around who can explain me this contradiction ??

Actually, some parts of the Song of Solomon probably couldn't be read on the air in the US, if you explained what it literally meant. It's veiled under flowery poetry, but there are definitely some mature sexual things in there. (I think I read that book when I was 12 or so, and I had no idea. It's only, going back later that it becomes more apparent)

This passage seems to me incredibly intolerant of polytheist idol-worshippers , such as the Hindus . Does this mean that no understanding is possible between Hindus and Christians ? Does it mean that the Christian God does not accept Hinduism as a true religion ? It tells Christians to "break the altars" of others , to "smash their sacred stones" . Is such behaviour acceptable by any standard of decency ?

I ask - why does God say this ?

First of all, keep in mind that this is a command to a certain group, in a certain time. (And to be perfectly correct, it is not a command to Christians, but rather those of the Judaistic faith - Christians did not exist at the time of this command, Christ wouldn't be born for more than a millenia) This was the Promised Land of the Israelites, and it was being filled with, and infected by sinful nations, who would not listen to God. These weren't a bunch of happy little people who spent their spare time flying kites and kissing babies; they were pagans who sacrificed children by burning them alive. And finally, they would have turned the Israelites against God. (As happened anyway) You think this is wrong because you start with the assumption that the God of the Bible isn't the real God; but if He was, then He had every right to command such a thing.

If such a culture existed today, don't you think someone, (Probably the US, with Europe helping out) would take action to stop them? And probably try them for crimes against humanity as well. Unfortunately, there was no UN or NATO to deal with such things then.

Oh really it's my personal favourite, nice little parable. It's Got Satan as a lead player and God and it's quite a deep tale IMO. Although maybe we should wait until he gets to that one?

Some christians place the old testament above the new, in my eyes this makes them something distinctly non Christian, but hey these ancients are a very small minority thank God

I wouldn't call it a "parable", but Job is an awesome book. You have to really think about what it means, though, instead of reacting instinctively. (Let's leave it alone until Aneeshm reads it - I'm sure he'll have plenty of questions)

I agree. The Old Testament should not be put above the New; if anything, it should be the other way around. The Law and the Covenant were fulfilled by Christ, as such we're no longer bound by them. Some people don't believe that, though.

 

[Masquerouge]

First of all, keep in mind that this is a command to a certain group, in a certain time. (And to be perfectly correct, it is not a command to Christians, but rather those of the Judaistic faith - Christians did not exist at the time of this command, Christ wouldn't be born for more than a millenia)
[...]

I agree. The Old Testament should not be put above the New; if anything, it should be the other way around. The Law and the Covenant were fulfilled by Christ, as such we're no longer bound by them. Some people don't believe that, though.

Since everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality is in the OT, and thus as you say is a command to a certain group, in a certain time, to those of the Judaistic faith, in the OT that should not be put above the NT, then why is homosexuality still a sin for Christians?