The Old Testament

[jayfox]

Jobfox,

However it was men(rather than God) who decided which books would be in the Bible and which wouldn't, right?

The Gospel of Thomas is a report of many of the sayings by Jesus himself. Yet it is not relevant according to the church it seems. Rather strange wouldn't you say?

If you believe in an Omnipotent God then it is not a stretch to believe that the books that made it into the Bible are the ones that He wanted in there and any that missed out did so for a reason.

 

[evo]

Well I guess so, Jehovahfox. It means the council of Nicea etc. was just a charade, and that the church and the flock are really just happless unthinking marionettes, acting out God's every whim.

If you are comfortable with that belief ,fair enough I suppose.

 

[jayfox]

Well I guess so, Jehovahfox. It means the council of Nicea etc. was just a charade, and that the church and the flock are really just happless unthinking marionettes, acting out God's every whim.

If you are comfortable with that belief ,fair enough I suppose.

Don't put your incorrect summations onto me, Adam and Evo. It doesn't mean that anything is a charade or that anyone is a hapless unthinking marionette. All it means is that, by one way or another, God has given us all of the information He intended about Himself and left the rest up to us to discover during our walk of life. We have to decide whether or not to believe it so in that way we can't be "unthinking marionettes". If God had allowed an incorrect Gospel to be included into the Bible that we learn about Him from, then you would have an argument and a real reason to be upset. If the Gospel of Thomas contradicts the teachings of the other 4 Gospels then you can be sure it is not the genuine word of God and is therefore not surprisingly omitted from His book.

 

[evo]

Don't put your incorrect summations onto me, Adam and Evo. It doesn't mean that anything is a charade or that anyone is a hapless unthinking marionette. All it means is that, by one way or another, God has given us all of the information He intended about Himself and left the rest up to us to discover during our walk of life. We have to decide whether or not to believe it so in that way we can't be "unthinking marionettes". If God had allowed an incorrect Gospel to be included into the Bible that we learn about Him from, then you would have an argument and a real reason to be upset. If the Gospel of Thomas contradicts the teachings of the other 4 Gospels then you can be sure it is not the genuine word of God and is therefore not surprisingly omitted from His book.

Jezabelfox,

There is contradictions riddled throughout the old and new testaments;which was basically Rosy's point. Should I beat my slave, but not enough to kill him; or should I love my neighbour as myself?

To say that God decided to leave out Thomas gospel but let many of the others in because they accorded with each other flies in the face of the reality of the situation.

Anyway, back to the stories.

I wonder if Glantone has got through the begatting section yet. Always a riveting read.

 

[jayfox]

Jezabelfox,

There is contradictions riddled throughout the old and new testaments;which was basically Rosy's point. Should I beat my slave, but not enough to kill him; or should I love my neighbour as myself?

To say that God decided to leave out Thomas gospel but let many of the others in because they accorded with each other flies in the face of the reality of the situation.

Anyway, back to the stories.

I wonder if Glantone has got through the begatting section yet. Always a riveting read.

I reckon it's pretty clear. Anything in the NT that teaches something different to the OT is a new teaching to be followed. Surely such a knowledgeable, studious person as yourself can work that out?

As for the begatting section, even I struggle to wade through that. Still, not so hard to understand that part!

 

[Djevv]

Err....any chance of a religion based thread which doesn't degenerate into a vitriolic slanging match?

 

[glantone]

I think Gen 1 is pure divine revelation. God was there, we weren't. I don't think you need worry too much about faith/belief - just take it at face value. The prose is generally straightforward. The stories have layers of meaning, literal, metaphorical, spiritual. Do you have to believe the whole thing to enjoy the read?

No, but if all that is contained within the OT is not right and true how can anyone know what is meant to be believed and what is not?

As you say in Gen 1 God was there, we weren’t - if I accept this on face value then I have by default subordinated logic and reason to the telling of the story or to faith for the remainder of the text. And this in itself isn’t a problem – I love reading fiction - it’s only claims that the OT is right and true that muddies the waters for me here.

I guess I’m just trying to establish the integrity of the text according to christians like jay and yourself which will in turn perhaps assist me in how best to interpret the stories.

Is everything in the OT to be believed or not?
Is any one event more or less believable than any other event?
Can any one interpretation of events in the OT be more valid than any other if neither interpretation is supported by the text?

I am by the way enjoying it – it’s great.

Yes it is about the creation of light, but the idea is God SPOKE by faith into nothing and it came to be. Creation by and through His WORD (Jesus).

You mean God willed it to happen, right. When God speaks/ when his voice is heard is it always through vision, dream etc never a whisper in the ear?
Just trying to get some reading ground rules sorted.

Personally I think Moses put together the writings of previous generations at well as his own revelations and worked into a whole - the Pentateuch.

Anyway keep reading!

When you say the writings of previous generations can you be more specific? Who?


evo, come across a bit of begattin, and I must confess I skipped a bit there. Read one begattin, read them all.

 

[evo]

Understandable in regard to the begattin'.

Exodus is more fun. One doesn't have to suspend their disbelief so much.

 

[Djevv]

No, but if all that is contained within the OT is not right and true how can anyone know what is meant to be believed and what is not?

As you say in Gen 1 God was there, we weren’t - if I accept this on face value then I have by default subordinated logic and reason to the telling of the story or to faith for the remainder of the text. And this in itself isn’t a problem – I love reading fiction - it’s only claims that the OT is right and true that muddies the waters for me here.

Gen 1 and some of the other stories from the early section of Genesis is very controversial even from a Christian perspective. There are many different interpretations of Gen 1 and I suggest you do some reading. Personally I am loath to go against the plain meaning of the text other than where things plainly meant metaphorically. That said ALL Christians when they approach the OT look for the typological/metaphorical meanings: eg the origin and nature of Man, the origin and nature of marriage, the origin of Sin, why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable to God and so on. Genesis is the book of beginnings which undergirds how you approach the rest of the Bible. You are correct that it is not meant to be fiction.

I guess I’m just trying to establish the integrity of the text according to christians like jay and yourself which will in turn perhaps assist me in how best to interpret the stories.

Is everything in the OT to be believed or not?
Is any one event more or less believable than any other event?
Can any one interpretation of events in the OT be more valid than any other if neither interpretation is supported by the text?

Again how people approach the scripture depends on ones doctrinal position. Me personally I think the events are honest and truthful recounts BUT they are focussed on the spirtual so events that we might think important and report are left out eg Lot's wife has no name.

I am by the way enjoying it – it’s great.

Yes, Genesis is a great read. One of my favorite OT books.

You mean God willed it to happen, right. When God speaks/ when his voice is heard is it always through vision, dream etc never a whisper in the ear?
Just trying to get some reading ground rules sorted.

Any of the above - including, I presume, plain speech.

When you say the writings of previous generations can you be more specific? Who?

The patriarchs: Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers would have recorded/memorised the stories of working of God in their lives. The texts stack up well archaeologically and have often been proved accurate where once they were believed to be written much later(eg google the Hittites). I believe these were held by the Isrealites and finally worked into the Pentateuch by Moses. Whether they were written or oral history is unknown.

evo, come across a bit of begattin, and I must confess I skipped a bit there. Read one begattin, read them all.

Actually the begatting is important because it gives the lineage and origin of both the Israelites and the peoples who surround them, who come into the story later. The story of the Messianic line is also part of the 'begatting' and continues as a theme through the entire OT.

 

[pahoffm]

Just started on a epic journey into the unknown – reading the OT (something I've long wanted to do) and thought it deserved a dedicated thread. The christianity thread is already quite long.

As I’m reading I’m thinking (and apologies if the answers come later in the text because I’m just a few pages in) how was the knowledge of creation (the 7 days, Adam & Eve etc) first communicated and to whom? Once received how was it recorded and passed on?

If god spoke, what language was it that he spoke and how would he have been understood or was the knowledge of creation something that god communicated much later when spoken language was organised.

And when god spoke to Adam and the serpent – again what form of communication or artistic liscence is at play here?

Certainly a "titanic" task - War And Peace would be easier.

During my school days, I learnt that Jewish scholars did not interpret the Old Testament in it's literal form. In fact, many provided "commentaries" attached to the text. Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi, 1040-1105) is the most famous.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi

An introduction to these commentaries can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_commentaries_on_the_Bible

From a Jewish perspective, Rashi's commentaries can be found at http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

From a Christian perspective, commentaries can be found at http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/

Good luck!
You'll need it.

 

[glantone]

Certainly a "titanic" task - War And Peace would be easier.

Yeah, well, gotta read something til Cormac McCarthy finishes his next novel. thanks for those sites.


Djevv, jay, anyone

I keep coming back to the very start of the OT– got a few ticks in my ear that I can’t sleep on.

God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from it or touch it.

According to the text, is it reasonable to suggest that at the time God had no way of knowing one way or the other whether Adam or Eve would respect his command?

If all along, God knew the serpent would approach Eve who on cue would succumb to the serpent’s slick idea which in turn would cause God to vent his anger, what would be the point (other than a divine love for pantomime and/or self amusement) in God planting the tree there in the first place?
My point is, God can't be all knowing when it comes to the future. Would you agree?

What do you believe that tree really is or represents?

Finally, if all that god made is good how is it the serpent displayed such manipulative and negative characteristics? Why would God grant a gold pass to the garden of eden to such a snake in the grass as that serpent?

 

[Djevv]

Yeah, well, gotta read something til Cormac McCarthy finishes his next novel. thanks for those sites.


Djevv, jay, anyone

I keep coming back to the very start of the OT– got a few ticks in my ear that I can’t sleep on.

God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from it or touch it.

According to the text, is it reasonable to suggest that at the time God had no way of knowing one way or the other whether Adam or Eve would respect his command?

If all along, God knew the serpent would approach Eve who on cue would succumb to the serpent’s slick idea which in turn would cause God to vent his anger, what would be the point (other than a divine love for pantomime and/or self amusement) in God planting the tree there in the first place?
My point is, God can't be all knowing when it comes to the future. Would you agree?

What do you believe that tree really is or represents?

Finally, if all that god made is good how is it the serpent displayed such manipulative and negative characteristics? Why would God grant a gold pass to the garden of eden to such a snake in the grass as that serpent?

This all comes back the the question of whether a good God would create a universe where evil is possible. Yes if He had a good enough reason. Yes if more good than evil results. There are decapages, possibly a hectopage on this over on 'Christianity'.

Try turning the question around, is it impossible that a good God might create a universe where evil is possible?

 

[Disco08]

My answer to that question would be "yes" if we substitute the words 'good God' for the words 'perfect being'.

 

[Tigers of Old]

When's the latest installment due out?

 

[tigertim]

When's the latest installment due out?

It's released on Blu Ray on Good Friday.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It's released on Blu Ray on Good Friday.

Available at your local TAB. :-\

 

[Djevv]

My answer to that question would be "yes" if we substitute the words 'good God' for the words 'perfect being'.

Howso? Are you saying there can never be a good enough reason for a perfect being to create a less than perfect world?

For autonomous moral agents (us) to exist a good and perfect God must have limited his power in this universe - otherwise we would not be able to choose anything but God's will. Hence evil becomes possible.

 

[evo]

.....otherwise we would not be able to choose anything but God's will. Hence evil becomes possible.

Bingo.

Just change the phrase 'Gods will' to 'nature' and you have the philosphical position of Non-free will determinism

 

[Disco08]

Howso? Are you saying there can never be a good enough reason for a perfect being to create a less than perfect world?

For autonomous moral agents (us) to exist a good and perfect God must have limited his power in this universe - otherwise we would not be able to choose anything but God's will. Hence evil becomes possible.

I think it's illogical that a perfect being could conceive of anything that wasn't perfect. How could a perfect being devise pain and suffering?

God initially created a world of perfection (aside from that lying little *smile* - the talking snake). Presumably (suspending God's power to see the future) He was happy for people to live like this?

 

[Djevv]

I think it's illogical that a perfect being could conceive of anything that wasn't perfect. How could a perfect being devise pain and suffering?

God initially created a world of perfection (aside from that lying little sh!t - the talking snake). Presumably (suspending God's power to see the future) He was happy for people to live like this?

The snake = satan who had fallen by this stage. So God had created a world that was not perfect in that it allowed sin. I don't see why it is illogical for God to create a world with free will - what his ultimate reason is, however, we can only guess at. Yes, I agree he could see what was to come - but thought that the outcome was worth it. I mean despite abject poverty, wars, natural disasters etc most people think it is worthwhile to keep living - how much greater gift is eternal life than what we currently have?

Obviously if you read the OT you will find that God was not happy with the circumstance the world fell into - which is the reason for the salvation plan.