TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:12 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 21, 2015, 02:13PM Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2015, 03:07AMBoring Dave suspects some kind of benevolent later rewrite that inflated an existing story into 40 years of manna. As he already has raised the same suspicion regarding the plagues segment, both of which presumably came under the oversight of the same editor.You're not boring and you're allowed to write about yourself in the 1st person here, we're not using academic standards. Fortunately for me.

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2015, 03:07AMVerse 14: 'Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."'

Writing a passage about it in a book that you then pass down for ever and ever seems like an odd way to "utterly blot out the memory of Amalek"!I didn't notice that. Maybe God does have a sense of humor, or at least irony. I'll have to keep my eye out for any "Dad jokes".
Not to stir up pure and holy righteous indignation in any True Christians clearly and properly serving as God's authorized personal mouthpieces by being so impertinent as to even conceive of suggesting that there's any non-Satanic reason to question the well researched, thoroughly understood and utterly unassailably factual nature and absolute authority of the conservative Protestant Christian doctrine on the source of the Bible of course, but have you guys read the Introduction to the 1611 King James Bible? I find it quite interesting, personally. It is a good deal of work to get through, so here's a cheat sheet.

Maybe that should be another topic ... ?

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:17 pm

Exodus 19 text

Highlights

- The Israelites gather at Mount Sinai for God to manifest

Summary

- The Israelites reach Mount Sinai.
- Moses climbs the mountain and talks to God.
- God tells Moses to command the Israelites to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation".
- God is to manifest as a cloud on Mount Sinai on the third day after.
- Moses tells all the Israelites to stay off the mountain on that day.
- God descends on Mount Sinai as smoke and thunder.
- Moses and Aaron alone are commanded to ascend the mountain...

Questions and Observations

1) ...One of Moses's big set-pieces of great memorableness is about to unfold.
2) Smoke and thunder on a mountain sounds like a volcano. But Mount Sinai is not volcanic. People have raised theories about whether a different mountain is meant than the one that currently bears that name, and the fact that Deuteronomy calls it by another name (Mount Horeb) only adds to the confusion.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:28 pm

Quote from: ddickerson on Dec 21, 2015, 02:33PMYou guys don't even consider the fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and wasn't part of a publishing, editing process. You will never get close to the real meaning pursuing this that way.

Oh well, back to your story telling.....

Well actually I do think that "16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." quote 2 Tim 3

But God doesn't tell us how he inspired scripture, did he dictate it? or did he allow the writers to use there own words, and base what they wrote, on their experience and stories that had passed down over the centuries? I think the later, but however God did it, whatever means he used to get the words he wanted, I'm confident that it will succeed in whatever purpose that God has for it.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Dec 21, 2015, 03:12PMNot to stir up pure and holy righteous indignation in any True Christians clearly and properly serving as God's authorized personal mouthpieces by being so impertinent as to even conceive of suggesting that there's any non-Satanic reason to question the well researched, thoroughly understood and utterly unassailably factual nature and absolute authority of the conservative Protestant Christian doctrine on the source of the Bible of course, but have you guys read the Introduction to the 1611 King James Bible? I find it quite interesting, personally. It is a good deal of work to get through, so here's a cheat sheet.

Maybe that should be another topic ... ?

"Not to stir up pure and holy righteous indignation..."!!! sure, where's the "rolls eyes" emoji when you need it

. You would never do that, innocent as the driven snow.

And as the pure and holy champion of epistemic responsibility you would never dream of saying anything that wasn't completely true and supported by incontrovertible scientific evidence.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not embarrassed about the KJV's preface and I'm quite happy about talking about it. But another thread would be good. I find the history of the KJV and translating in general interesting. You probably know, but there have been a number of editions of the KJV over the centuries and some of them have had some really good typo's.

And even apart from its translational inaccuracies and the fact that its a bible, I and many others think that it is one of the great classics of the English language.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:38 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 21, 2015, 04:28PM"Not to stir up pure and holy righteous indignation..."!!! sure, where's the "rolls eyes" emoji when you need it

. You would never do that, innocent as the driven snow.

And as the pure and holy champion of epistemic responsibility you would never dream of saying anything that wasn't completely true and supported by incontrovertible scientific evidence.Heh ... I liked it--thought it got the point across pretty well.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 21, 2015, 04:28PMSorry to disappoint you, but I'm not embarrassed about the KJV's preface and I'm quite happy about talking about it.I didn't think you'd have any trouble with it at all, man ... because you're plainly deceived by Satan!

Seriously though--didn't think you'd have an issue with that at all--thought you'd more than likely find it interesting as well.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 21, 2015, 04:28PMBut another thread would be good.I'm reluctant to start another religion thread, so if you think it would be better to make a new one I'd rather leave that up to you. If you think Religion Matters: Take 3 would be a good place then I'll run with that, so the venue for this gig is your call, man.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:46 pm

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 21, 2015, 03:17PM Exodus 19 text

Highlights

- The Israelites gather at Mount Sinai for God to manifest

Summary

- The Israelites reach Mount Sinai.
- Moses climbs the mountain and talks to God.
- God tells Moses to command the Israelites to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation".
- God is to manifest as a cloud on Mount Sinai on the third day after.
- Moses tells all the Israelites to stay off the mountain on that day.
- God descends on Mount Sinai as smoke and thunder.
- Moses and Aaron alone are commanded to ascend the mountain...

Questions and Observations

1) ...One of Moses's big set-pieces of great memorableness is about to unfold.
2) Smoke and thunder on a mountain sounds like a volcano. But Mount Sinai is not volcanic. People have raised theories about whether a different mountain is meant than the one that currently bears that name, and the fact that Deuteronomy calls it by another name (Mount Horeb) only adds to the confusion.

It does sound like a volcano. And with the reference to Israel being borne on eagles wings, its obvious we have a reference here to hobbits and Mt Doom.

And while I'm being tongue in cheek and talking about translation and the KJV, I'd like to say that there is a huge translational controversy in this passage. Traditionally the text is translated with trumpets announcing God's presence, but we all know that it's the Trombone that is the "Voice of God". So the KJV got it wrong. Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German and he had the second coming of Jesus being announced by Posaunnes ie Trombones, and not trumpets as the KJV has.

My only serious comment is to remind you of the time that The Lord first appeared to Moses in the burning bush. The themes of God's holiness, holy ground, God being associated with fire, God being unsafe are repeated here, but magnified.

I'll try to behave in future.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:51 am

Exodus 20 text

Highlights

- God introduces himself to the Isrealites and specifies the conditions for them to be "his treasured possession among all peoples, ... a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"

Summary

- God introduces himself : Hi, I'm Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of slavery
- Here are the conditions of you want to be my People
How to behave towards me:
1 Don't have any other gods before me
2 Don't make any idols to worship
3 Don't take the name of Yaweh your God in vain
4 Keep the Sabbath day special and don't do any work on it because I rested after creating the world

How to behave towards each other
5 Honor you Mum and Dad
6 Don't murder
7 Don't commit adultery
8 Don't steal
9 Don't bear false witness against your neighbour
10 Don't covet you neighbours stuff

- The Israelites were overawed thought it best for Moses to do the talking to God
- God gives some worship laws: no gold or silver gods, only rough hewn stone alters, and no stairs.

Questions and Observations

0. So did God have to introduce himself because the People didn't know who he was, or was it more of a formal requirement for a treaty?
1. Does this mean that they could have no other gods or just that Yaweh had to be their best god? (my daughter would say their besty).
2. God wasn't something that could be reduced to a made object and don't every think that he is. Kids make sure your Dad understands this. I'm not sure how literal the danger to the kids was, we'll check that our as we go.
3. This is about respecting their God rather than a ban on naughty words.
4. Don't work all the time, spend time at home with your family, and worshiping God. Its interesting that Sabbath rest was the climax of the creation and that its purpose is for us to rest. I wonder if it was common practice for normal people to have to work 7 days a week back then. I expect that slaves would have.
5. Obviously a good idea, I'll tell my kids.
6. So is this killing or murder?
7. Remember, in ancient times, one man could have multiple wives. I don't think that this applied the same way to husbands as well as wives.
8. Pretty straightforward.
9. Does this mean don't tell lies or don't bear false witness in a trial?
10. Don't be jealous. Implies that there will be social inequality eg those with smaller oxen will be jealous of those with larger. Note that wives and slaves are lumped in with other property that your not supposed to covet. This was the way of the world back then. Should we expect the 10C's to be able to govern our culture or should they be relevant to theirs.

11. So we've got some rules specifying how the People were to respect and worship God, and some others that regulated how they were to behave in community.
12. The rules weren't there to earn favour with God: he had already "saved" them and had chosen them as his people, they were there to show the the People how to live as his priestly kings and Holy Nation. How does this relate to the current day? Is there a nation that it applies too? Or are the 10C's a way of earning salvation, if you were that way inclined?
13. What sort of community do you think the community rules would have encouraged.

14. Moses says in v20 "do not fear, because God has come to test you" That would worry me.

15. In the last chapter there were lots of warnings that the people should keep their distance. Whether it was a volcano, thunder and lightning or just the ominous music, the people didn't need to be convinced to keep their distance. This God stuff was scary.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:26 am

So lets catch up after the festivities.

Exodus 21 text
Exodus 22 text
Exodus 23 text

Highlights

- Lots of detailed laws

Summary

- 21:1-11: Slave Law
- 21:12-27: Violence Law
- 21:28-36: Property Law
- 22:1-15: Restitution Law (Compensation)
- 22:16-31: Social Justice and miscelaneous laws
- 23:1-9: Universal, Fair Justice
- 23:10-13: A Sabbath Year - look after the land
- 23:14-19: Festivals - memorials to remember what God has done for them

- 23:20-33: Conquering Canaan
   - God promises that an angel to help the Israelites
   - He warns the Israelites not to be seduced by the inhabitants' worship of other gods but to utterly overthrow them.
   - And drive all those people out, don't make treaties with them
   - God also mentions that he won't get rid of all of these people overnight. Otherwise, the wild animals would overwhelm Israel Instead, it'll happen gradually over a number of years.
   - God restates the extent of the land that he had promised his people.

Questions and Observations

1. These detailed laws probably started with the altar law back in ch 20.
2. The 10C's are big picture itens, now here is the fine print.
3. ISTM that slavery in this time was voluntary and was a form of employment. And the fact that someone could volunteer to stay a slave permanently indicates that there were possible benefits to the slave. So why would someone enter into this form of slavery and why would they want to stay a slave.
4. Obviously, lots of dispossession is being planned here. How is this justified in the text? Do you agree?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:21 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 22, 2015, 12:51AM Exodus 20 text

Highlights

- God introduces himself to the Isrealites and specifies the conditions for them to be "his treasured possession among all peoples, ... a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"

Summary

- God introduces himself : Hi, I'm Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of slavery
- Here are the conditions of you want to be my People

The curious thing about Ex 20 is it doesn't say this is the Ten Commandments.

Okay, the English title of the chapter does, but that is an editor's addition. Nowhere in the actual body of the text does it claim these verses are the fabled Ten.

So I went looking, and found Ex 34. This DOES claim to be the real Ten, but they bear no resemblance to the verses in Ex 20.

I've always been curious as to when we decided to fix on Ex 20 (and the restatement in Deut I think) as the Ten, and ignore what the Bible itself says are the Ten.

ttf_John the Theologian · Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:20 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 31, 2015, 06:21PMThe curious thing about Ex 20 is it doesn't say this is the Ten Commandments.

Okay, the English title of the chapter does, but that is an editor's addition. Nowhere in the actual body of the text does it claim these verses are the fabled Ten.

So I went looking, and found Ex 34. This DOES claim to be the real Ten, but they bear no resemblance to the verses in Ex 20.

I've always been curious as to when we decided to fix on Ex 20 (and the restatement in Deut I think) as the Ten, and ignore what the Bible itself says are the Ten.

Probably because the 10 of Exodus 20 are those said to be spoken by God from the cloud surrounding the mountain and what was on the 2 tablets that Moses carried down the mountain. The commandments of Ex 34 come after the golden calf incident and the breaking of the 1st set of tablets by Moses in Exodus 32. The instruction to make 2 new tablets comes at the beginning of chapter 34, before the appearance of the commands to which you are referring. The repeat of the commandments in Deut 7 includes the statement that those 10 were those written on tablets-- cf. v. 22-- and they are highlighted as being the most central of the commandments.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:55 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Dec 31, 2015, 07:20PMProbably because the 10 of Exodus 20 are those said to be spoken by God

I'm not so sure, because there aren't 10 in Exodus 20.

We know there is supposed to be a set of 10 Commandments, it's referenced several times (not to mention Ex 34 says here, these are THE 10 Commandments, more evidence there is supposed to be a set of 10.)

Trouble is, there is really no good way to force the verses of Ex 20 into 10 clean commandments. If you didn't cheat and know the answer is 10, you'd definitely get a larger number.

ttf_John the Theologian · Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:42 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 01, 2016, 12:55PMI'm not so sure, because there aren't 10 in Exodus 20.

We know there is supposed to be a set of 10 Commandments, it's referenced several times (not to mention Ex 34 says here, these are THE 10 Commandments, more evidence there is supposed to be a set of 10.)

Trouble is, there is really no good way to force the verses of Ex 20 into 10 clean commandments. If you didn't cheat and know the answer is 10, you'd definitely get a larger number.

I think that the number 10 comes from later numbering by Jewish and Christian theologians and biblical scholars. You are correct that the division of the commandments varies. For example the Reformed tradition divides them differently than the Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions who lump together what the Reformed call the 1st and 2nd and then the L-RC divide the coveting commandment into 2-- not quite sure about the Eastern Orthodox. Those of us in the Reformed tradition like to say that it's because the L-RC traditions are trying to avoid the statements about no graven images with their crucifixes--

Anyway, it really doesn't matter in the long view of things exactly how we count the commandments of EX 20 and Deut 6 as long as we realize that the text highlights those commandments as having priority and being written on the stone tablets-- I don't see how you can read the narrative any other way for the reasons I've given above. If you want to call them the 9 commandments or 11 or the 12 commandments, it won't hurt anything other than the making it impossible for anyone else to know what you're talking about.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:23 pm

But you're also one who relies much more on the text than I.

It seems to me you're in the position of saying yeah, we know there aren't really Ten Commandments, but it doesn't matter all that much.

I'd agree.

But then you're also one who says if the Bible says there are Ten Commandments then by gum there are Ten Commandments.

And it does, and these aren't the ones.

ttf_John the Theologian · Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:55 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 01, 2016, 06:23PMBut you're also one who relies much more on the text than I.

It seems to me you're in the position of saying yeah, we know there aren't really Ten Commandments, but it doesn't matter all that much.

I'd agree.

But then you're also one who says if the Bible says there are Ten Commandments then by gum there are Ten Commandments.

And it does, and these aren't the ones.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of what you're saying, Tim. I'm not making any kind of "big deal" about the term Ten Commandments. I'm just saying that it has become a theological shorthand for the commands found in Ex. 20 The fact that the later commands also number 10 is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I don't get what you're beating into the ground. You seem to think that conservative Biblical scholars are somehow fixated on the name. I don't want to speak for others, but I'm not and I don't suspect most others would be as well. Christians probably inherited the name from Judaism-- not completely sure about this-- and it has become part of the tradition, but I don't see any major issues riding on the exact number or numbering of the commandments of Exodus 20. I don't understand why you do.

ttf_robcat2075 · Post by **ttf_robcat2075** » Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:04 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 01, 2016, 01:42PM Those of us in the Reformed tradition like to say that it's because the L-RC traditions are trying to avoid the statements about no graven images with their crucifixes--

Although not strictly forbidden, I'll say that I've never seen a crucifix in any Lutheran church I've ever been in.

Possibly in some historic European cathedrals that are now Lutheran but I don't remember any there either.

I do recall a story some years ago of a Chicago Lutheran church with a Saint someone or other name that put a statue of Virgin Mary out front, a confession booth inside and scheduled a Spanish service and started poaching Hispanics from the nearby Catholic congregation.

"We had no idea it wasn't a Catholic church," was a quote from the article.

ttf_John the Theologian · Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:59 am

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 01, 2016, 08:04PMAlthough not strictly forbidden, I'll say that I've never seen a crucifix in any Lutheran church I've ever been in.

Possibly in some historic European cathedrals that are now Lutheran but I don't remember any there either.

I do recall a story some years ago of a Chicago Lutheran church with a Saint someone or other name that put a statue of Virgin Mary out front, a confession booth inside and scheduled a Spanish service and started poaching Hispanics from the nearby Catholic congregation.

"We had no idea it wasn't a Catholic church," was a quote from the article.

I dated a girl wile in high school years ago who came from a traditional Lutheran background and when we went to the Christmas Eve service in the church in Hammond, IN, that her dad had grown up in-- LCMS-- she warned me about the large crufix in the front of the church beforehand-- her mom had grown up Presbyterian-- and she was well aware of how that would affect those of us from the Reformed tradition. A few years ago I met an LCMS pastor who wore a rather large crucifix around his neck. It does seem to be live option in those churches from the German Lutheran tradition anyway.

25 years ago, award winning Cuban-American Reformation scholar, Carlos Eire, who was teaching at the University of Virginia at that time, wrote his influential book, War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin, which he pointed out the huge significance of the issue of images in the Reformation.

Here's a link to the book for those who might be interested:

http://www.amazon.com/War-against-Idols-Reformation-Worship/dp/0521379849/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451742637&sr=1-10&refinements=p_27%3ACarlos+Eire

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:25 am

I did some of the music for the main chapel at an Army base in Germany.

At the time there were three services back to back: Catholic, Generic Protestant (pretty close to a fundamentalist Baptist), and Lutheran. The Episcopals merged with the Lutherans when they lost their separate service. I played piano and cantored for the Catholics, ran the praise band for the Protestant and played some piano, then stayed for the last service where I was a member.

The large cross at the front of the church was installed to rotate. Catholics turned it with the crucified Jesus forward, Protestants rotated it so the bare side faced forward.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:32 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 01, 2016, 07:55PM I'm just saying that it has become a theological shorthand for the commands found in Ex. 20 The fact that the later commands also number 10 is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I don't get what you're beating into the ground.

It's more than a theological shorthand, it's extremely annoying especially in the political US arena! It's a modern addition to/corruption of the text, which I find troubling, and though some political (as opposed to religious) conservatives really like posting the Ten Commandments in public places very few people are willing to open the Bible and see if they're quoted correctly.

The later commands, as you put it, are different in two ways: the text actually says these are the real Ten, and there are actually Ten. But we ignore that, and I'd bet 99% of the people reading this argument don't even know this set of Ten exists.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:43 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 02, 2016, 06:32AMIt's more than a theological shorthand, it's extremely annoying especially in the political US arena! It's a modern addition to/corruption of the text, which I find troubling, and though some political (as opposed to religious) conservatives really like posting the Ten Commandments in public places very few people are willing to open the Bible and see if they're quoted correctly.

The later commands, as you put it, are different in two ways: the text actually says these are the real Ten, and there are actually Ten. But we ignore that, and I'd bet 99% of the people reading this argument don't even know this set of Ten exists.
Are the second/actual 10 the list with no seething a kid in its mother's milk and such?

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:01 am

From Bible Gateway, using the NIV:

20 And God spoke all these words:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 You shall not covet your neighbors house. You shall not covet your neighbors wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.

20 Moses said to the people, Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.

21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.

Looks like 10 Commandments to me. Not 10 verses, but 10 commandments. What's the problem?

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:09 am

Almost as if the discussion above didn't exist, there ...

ttf_John the Theologian · Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:11 am

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the various numberings and the importance of them in the various Jewish and Christian tradition. Apparently the Jewish tradition called them the "10 Words" originally. Check the link out if you want a good summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:17 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 02, 2016, 09:09AMAlmost as if the discussion above didn't exist, there ...

Very few people are going to open the book, if they've seen the movie.

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:45 pm

I love it! Atheist/liberals teaching Christian theology!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:58 pm

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 02, 2016, 04:45PMI love it! Atheist/liberals teaching Christian theology!
IOW your only standard is agreement, which is the same as to say you don't actually have any real standards, only agreement. That pretty much eliminates any capacity for actual consideration on the matter. All you really "consider" is whether you already agree or not. Whether a given notion is solidly evidenced and/or argued is simply beyond that "process".

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:27 pm

It's called discernment.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:45 pm

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 02, 2016, 06:27PM Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 02, 2016, 05:58PM Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 02, 2016, 04:45PMI love it! Atheist/liberals teaching Christian theology!IOW your only standard is agreement, which is the same as to say you don't actually have any real standards, only agreement. That pretty much eliminates any capacity for actual consideration on the matter. All you really "consider" is whether you already agree or not. Whether a given notion is solidly evidenced and/or argued is simply beyond that "process".It's called discernment.
I love it! A dogmatist/zealot preaching about discernment.

Awesome ...

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:11 am

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 30, 2015, 02:26AMSo lets catch up after the festivities.

Exodus 21 text
Exodus 22 text
Exodus 23 text

Highlights

- Lots of detailed laws

Summary

- 21:1-11: Slave Law
- 21:12-27: Violence Law
- 21:28-36: Property Law
- 22:1-15: Restitution Law (Compensation)
- 22:16-31: Social Justice and miscelaneous laws
- 23:1-9: Universal, Fair Justice
- 23:10-13: A Sabbath Year - look after the land
- 23:14-19: Festivals - memorials to remember what God has done for them

- 23:20-33: Conquering Canaan
   - God promises that an angel to help the Israelites
   - He warns the Israelites not to be seduced by the inhabitants' worship of other gods but to utterly overthrow them.
   - And drive all those people out, don't make treaties with them
   - God also mentions that he won't get rid of all of these people overnight. Otherwise, the wild animals would overwhelm Israel Instead, it'll happen gradually over a number of years.
   - God restates the extent of the land that he had promised his people.

Questions and Observations

1. These detailed laws probably started with the altar law back in ch 20.
2. The 10C's are big picture itens, now here is the fine print.
3. ISTM that slavery in this time was voluntary and was a form of employment. And the fact that someone could volunteer to stay a slave permanently indicates that there were possible benefits to the slave. So why would someone enter into this form of slavery and why would they want to stay a slave.
4. Obviously, lots of dispossession is being planned here. How is this justified in the text? Do you agree?

Thanks Martin. Three for the price of one, a feel-good deal.

This set of laws seems of only antiquarian interest; "Laws about Slaves" are themselves illegal these days, "Laws about Restitution" pretty obviously with a society too different from ours to have much applicability (agricultural stuff was more important to this group, apparently), and "Laws about the Sabbath and Festivals" are long forgotten, outside particular sects of Judaism. "Laws about Social Justice" can be a different bag, when we are looking at the Bible - it is these kinds of verses that fundamentalists point at to justify homophobia, for example. But this grouping contains nothing that I have seen quoted in such contexts, so I'll come back to this when we encounter such laws.

The dispossession is of a narrative piece with earlier promises to Abraham etc. - except now it is explicitly recognised that significant bloodshed will happen en route.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:21 am

Exodus 24 text

Highlights

- God calls Moses and others to witness his manifestation
- He promises to produce tablets of stone for laws

Summary

- Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu + 70 elders of Israel called by God to come up to him on Mount Sinai
- Moses writes down all the laws previously given
- Makes 12 offerings on 12 pillars for the 12 tribes of Israel
- Moses and Joshua go up again on the mountain to God to receive the stone tablets, leaving Aaron and Hur in charge
- God takes 6 days then calls to them
- They spend 40 days and nights on the mountain

Questions and Observations

1) Have we encountered Nadab and Abihu before? I'm starting to forget...
2) It seems to be assumed that God has human form here - "beneath his feet".
3) Is the sapphire significant? I don't think we've seen the trappings of wealth around God before? Moses's style does tend to the showy.
4) "40 days and nights" is a number that we see elsewhere.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:44 am

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 05, 2016, 07:21AM Exodus 24 text

Highlights

- God calls Moses and others to witness his manifestation
- He promises to produce tablets of stone for laws

Summary

- Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu + 70 elders of Israel called by God to come up to him on Mount Sinai
- Moses writes down all the laws previously given
- Makes 12 offerings on 12 pillars for the 12 tribes of Israel
- Moses and Joshua go up again on the mountain to God to receive the stone tablets, leaving Aaron and Hur in charge
- God takes 6 days then calls to them
- They spend 40 days and nights on the mountain

Questions and Observations

1) Have we encountered Nadab and Abihu before? I'm starting to forget...
2) It seems to be assumed that God has human form here - "beneath his feet".
3) Is the sapphire significant? I don't think we've seen the trappings of wealth around God before? Moses's style does tend to the showy.
4) "40 days and nights" is a number that we see elsewhere.

The Bible often uses human characteristic to describe God. For example in the psalms is says that he upholds us with his powerful hand-- Psalm 136:12-- there are over a 100 references to this alone in the Bible. Some have even come into popular hymnody-- Leaning on the Everlasting Arms from Deuteronomy 33:27,

These are a variation on the use of human analogies and metaphors to describe God. Other such metaphors are that God is a strong tower-- Psalm 61:3. Luther's famous A Mighty Fortress is Our God picks up that idea, although it is more directly related to Psalm 46.

The ones referring to human characteristics are called anthropomorphisms. Classical theologians refer to them as accomodations on God's part to our understanding so that we can grasp truth about an otherwise incomprehensible God. I like Calvin's famous idea that God speaks "baby talk" to us so that we can understand something about who He is.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:38 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 05, 2016, 08:44AM

The ones referring to human characteristics are called anthropomorphisms. Classical theologians refer to them as accomodations on God's part to our understanding so that we can grasp truth about an otherwise incomprehensible God. I like Calvin's famous idea that God speaks "baby talk" to us so that we can understand something about who He is.

This makes sense to me, but on the other hand I've seen God's Essential Maleness defended vigorously here.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:45 am

A Martin-style blockbuster instalment today, as the next few chapters deal mainly with interior decoration

Exodus 25 text
Exodus 26 text
Exodus 27 text
Exodus 28 text
Exodus 29 text
Exodus 30 text
Exodus 31 text

Highlights

- God commands Moses to have Israel kit him out a sweet sanctuary, specifying materials and dimensions. The furnishings are sumptuous, and the institution is to be tended by state-funded priests.

Summary

- God specifies to Moses how to have Israel make him a sanctuary. The contents are to be:
i) The Ark of the Covenant - a box to contain the stone tablets. A "mercy seat" of pure gold with golden figures is attached to the top of it.
ii) The Offering Table - a table on which to place offerings of incense, liquid, and bread.
iii) The Golden Lampstand.
iv) The Tabernacle - a large elaborately decorated tent in which the Sanctuary is to be housed.
v) The Altar - movable, overlaid in bronze, and with horns at the corners.
vi) The Court of the Tabernacle - a large and lavishly decorated entrance space for the Tabernacle.
vii) The Lamp - to be kept burning at all times with olive oil.
viii) The Basin - to be kept before the altar and filled with water for priests to clean their hands and feet.
- God specifies to Moses how Aaron and the other priests must tend the Sanctuary.
i) The priests must wear particular (lavishly decorated) garments.
ii) They must be consecrated by anointing with oil and animal sacrifice.
iii) The altar must also be consecrated by them by animal sacrifice.
iv) The recipes for anointing oil and incense are given.
- God specifies to Moses how to fund all this - by a poll tax.
- God tells Moses to commission Bezalel and Oholiab as artistic directors and project managers of these works, to be completed by the people of Israel.
- God stresses to Moses the importance of a day off on the Sabbath, making it a capital offence to work on that day.

Questions and Observations

1) What exactly is a "sanctuary" in this context? Is this a coining of a new term, or is it the use of an existing word?
2) The furnishings are lavish. Lots of gold etc. Are the Israelites still wandering lost in the desert at this point? If they are, what have they been doing to have accrued all this wealth?
3) The reference to bread as an offering intrigues me, though I'm not sure whether I'm correct to be intrigued. It makes me think of the Eucharist, which was an inheritance from the Passover ritual. This does seem to be something different. Bread is such a common foodstuff that it found its way into various offering-type rituals.
4) Horns on the altar? Is that normal? Sounds a bit... well... Satany to my mind. Was there a clear concept of Satan in Judaism at this point in history? I note that modern Judaism does not treat Satan quite the same way as Christianity does.
5) I see that Nadab and Ibihu were Aaron's sons (cf. question in previous post).
6) Sacrificing two lambs a day would add up. This was a wealthy society - something that was already clear from the instructions about plentiful gold ornaments involved in building the Sanctuary.
7) The altar request is needlessly duplicated in the text in full detail, in Exodus 27:1-8 and Exodus 30:1-10.
8) Is the Sabbath reminder just because of all these public works, or is it a more general reminder?
9) Obviously, my interpretation of all this "God told Moses" stuff would be "Moses thought this a good idea, and said to his underlings 'God told me to told it'". It is definitely notable that it is only with the appearance of Moses in the story that God has started to get showy and theatrical in his actions and requests.
10) How happy do we think the people of Israel were to be told to monetarily support this new and costly state institution?

ttf_John the Theologian · Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:48 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 05, 2016, 01:38PMThis makes sense to me, but on the other hand I've seen God's Essential Maleness defended vigorously here.

The fact that classical theologians said that God accomodated Himself is does not rule out the fact that "male-like" characteristics are part of what these accomodations include Most orthodox theologians have argued that there are certainly "feminine-like" traits as well as "male-ilke" traits in these accomodations but that the preponderance of make-like traits is not insignificant. The fact that the term Father is used heavily used, for example, is significant according to classical theologians.

None of this should mean that God is completely defined by popular notions of maleness, nor that God is still incomprehensible in his essence and thus in a sense beyond maleness and femaleness What it does mean is that just as some can overreach in expressing an exaggerated frorm of patriarchy from the use of Father to refer to God, so many overreach in their egalitarianism by appealing to the idea that God is neither male nor female. Feminine-like qualities are revealed about God, but only a couple of times is he compared to a nursing mother, but hundreds of times he is referred to as Father. Classical theologians see this as significant.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:52 pm

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 06, 2016, 11:48AM What it does mean is that just as some can overreach in expressing an exaggerated frorm of patriarchy from the use of Father to refer to God, so many overreach in their egalitarianism by appealing to the idea that God is neither male nor female.

It seems to me there is an inherent and significant contradiction here.

On the one hand we can hold the position that God talks baby talk - tailors his revelation to what our little brains can understand - so some things are actually not how they are explained.

On the other hand many hold the position that God talks TO US - directly reveals his knowledge and will. So everything is actually how it is explained.

The maleness of God is a classic example. It can easily be true that a God has no need for reproduction and the concept of gender is meaningless. At the same time it can be true that God permits us to consider him male, and Father, simply because it was the easiest way for him to let us understand on our level.

It can also be true that God really IS male.

And there is no way to tell the difference between those, as long as you require that we maintain BOTH that God sometimes reveals himself directly AND does so sometimes - or maybe only at our level of baby talk understanding.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:46 pm

Is this what you mean Tim:

P1. That God tailors his revelations to what we can understand

P2. That God reveals everything exactly the way it is.

I agree that there is a contradiction between P1 and P2 but I don't think that is a contradiction in the bible. Some people think one thing and others think another.

I think that the bible uses P1. That where we can't understand something, God dumbs is down for us, but where we can, God tells it as it is.

I think that as we go through the bible we will also see a gradual revelation of God as he reveals more about himself. Just note the way the elders see the bottom of God's feet through a window in ch 24. This image is extended in Ezekiel and Revelation so we can talk about it then. John 1 also tells us more about how God is revealed. So don't stop reading.

ttf_John the Theologian · Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:31 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 06, 2016, 06:46PMIs this what you mean Tim:

P1. That God tailors his revelations to what we can understand

P2. That God reveals everything exactly the way it is.

I agree that there is a contradiction between P1 and P2 but I don't think that is a contradiction in the bible. Some people think one thing and others think another.

I think that the bible uses P1. That where we can't understand something, God dumbs is down for us, but where we can, God tells it as it is.

I think that as we go through the bible we will also see a gradual revelation of God as he reveals more about himself. Just note the way the elders see the bottom of God's feet through a window in ch 24. This image is extended in Ezekiel and Revelation so we can talk about it then. John 1 also tells us more about how God is revealed. So don't stop reading.

Martin, I think you have explained it well with your distinctions above. The late Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til said that our knowledge about God was analogical, i.e. true, but not knowledge as God knows it; it is knowledge as God has revealed it to us in a simplified, analogical form. It is true knowledge, but a limited form of knowledge and only as far as God intends for us, with our finite limits need and are capable of understanding.

These distinctions have been thoroughly discussed by orthodox theologians of various schools and there are certainly differences of emphasis and sometimes vigorous disputes, but no orthodox theologian would argue that we have an exhaustive knowledge of God. All would argue that our knowledge is limited and finite, yet true because God has revealed, progressively as Martin has said.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:00 pm

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 06, 2016, 06:45AMA Martin-style blockbuster instalment today, as the next few chapters deal mainly with interior decoration

QuoteQuestions and Observations

1) What exactly is a "sanctuary" in this context? Is this a coining of a new term, or is it the use of an existing word?

How could you forget that snappy little jingle in Ex 15

v17 says
   You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain,
   the place, O Lord, which you have made for your abode,
   the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established.

I think it refers to God's house, where he lived. Its a big highlight that God was now going to be living with the People. I would also think that this was why it was so richly decorated and why there were so many rules about sanctifying and cleansing yourself before you walked into Gods place.

Quote2) The furnishings are lavish. Lots of gold etc. Are the Israelites still wandering lost in the desert at this point? If they are, what have they been doing to have accrued all this wealth?

Remember back in chapter 12 where the Egyptians gave the People lots of gold and silver to get rid of them after the 10th plague. So they would have lots of expensive stuff to use on the sanctuary.

Quote3) The reference to bread as an offering intrigues me, though I'm not sure whether I'm correct to be intrigued. It makes me think of the Eucharist, which was an inheritance from the Passover ritual. This does seem to be something different. Bread is such a common foodstuff that it found its way into various offering-type rituals.

Your intrigue is valid. There is a direct link between the passover bread and the eucharist as the passover was meant to be symbolic of the crucifiction and the eucharist was a a repurposing of the passover remembrance meal to be a crucifiction remembrance meal. Check out Mattew 26 if you like.

Quote4) Horns on the altar? Is that normal? Sounds a bit... well... Satany to my mind. Was there a clear concept of Satan in Judaism at this point in history? I note that modern Judaism does not treat Satan quite the same way as Christianity does.

I don't know what the horn's symbolised, but I don't see any link to Satan or anyone else either. They may have just been functional and ornamental.

Quote6) Sacrificing two lambs a day would add up. This was a wealthy society - something that was already clear from the instructions about plentiful gold ornaments involved in building the Sanctuary.

They were descended from good shepherds.

Quote7) The altar request is needlessly duplicated in the text in full detail, in Exodus 27:1-8 and Exodus 30:1-10.

The altar in ch27 and ch30 have different dimensions and accessories. In ch30 the use of the altar is specified but not in ch27. Where's the duplication Dave?

Quote8) Is the Sabbath reminder just because of all these public works, or is it a more general reminder?

I'd never thought sbout it being contextual, sounds reasonable that it was put in there to make it clear to the people that the public works weren't more important than the command to rest.

Quote9) Obviously, my interpretation of all this "God told Moses" stuff would be "Moses thought this a good idea, and said to his underlings 'God told me to told it'". It is definitely notable that it is only with the appearance of Moses in the story that God has started to get showy and theatrical in his actions and requests.

Obviously

I think the reason for showiness was to do with God now living with people who were designated as his servants and this was a picture of what God was like when he was at home.

Do you think there was a reason for God showing off?

Quote10) How happy do we think the people of Israel were to be told to monetarily support this new and costly state institution?

There was a free will offering and a poll tax wasn't there.

I'm guessing that they were still in the honeymoon period, God had just saved them and shown how powerful he was, so that would make them more amenable to givung. But like most people there would always be a reluctance to part with what you see is yours. But they are generalisations - some would have been more cheerful givers than others. Just like at church today.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:06 am

Exodus 32 text

Now back to the narrative. By the way have you noticed how the writer gives us some narrative, and then leaves us hanging while he tells us about the laws, or the tabernacle (aka sanctuary) or priestly gear.

Highlights

- The People prove faithless at the first test.

Summary

- So to recap from ch 24 :
- Moses tells the people what God told them to do and all the People say they will do it
- Moses confirms the covenant by throwing blood over them
- Then Moses and the priests and elders go up to meet God on the mountain where they see the bottom of Gods feet
- Then Moses goes up to the top of the mountain and waits there for 6 days. He tells Aaron to look after the People
- After 6 days God calls Moses into the cloud where he is there for 40 days and nights

And back to ch 32
- When the people see that Moses is delayed they ask Aaron to make gods to lead them
- Aaron gathers their jewelry and made a golden calf out of them and tells the People that these are the gods that led them out of Egypt.
- God tells Moses to get out of the way so that he can destroy the people and start again with Moses
- Moses pleads with God to spare them, reminding God of his reputation and his promises to Abraham
- Moses goes down the mountain (with Joshua) and gets mad at the People
- He grinds the calf into dust, and through the dust onto water. He makes the People drink it.
- Aaron makes excuses. "It was their fault"
- Moses asks "who is on the Lord's side? Come to me". The sons of Levi come to Moses. He tells them to kill his brother and his friend and his neighbour.
- About 3000 were killed.
- Moses goes back up the mountain to try and convince God to forgive the sins of the People.
- God says he won't, but that Moses should lead the people where he has been told.
- And God sends a plague on the People because the made the calf ( like he said he would)

Questions and Observations

- Had God just told the People not to worship him as an idol?

- It looks like the People might have been worried that they had lost Moses as he had been in the cloud for 40 days and nights, so they created a tangible idol of God to represent him. The idol was meant to represent the god who had just rescued them from the Egyptians. So what's wrong with this?

- Well apart from the fact that they are doing what they were told not to do, I reckon that the idol degraded God. They had just been told to sey up a rich palace for God to live in, indicating that he was Royalty, but instead they wanted to represent him by a cow. Please read How to make a Good impression on the Powerful God that wants to live with you.

- So it seems that the bible is saying that its not ok to worship God anyway you please, or to have your own conception of him. You need to get it right.

- I don't imagine the task of killing friends and neighbours was easy. Why do you think Moses thought it was necessary?

- Why did Moses make the points he did when he was trying to convince God to forgive the People?

- Do you think that God should have forgiven them?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:55 am

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 06, 2016, 07:31PM

These distinctions have been thoroughly discussed by orthodox theologians of various schools and there are certainly differences of emphasis and sometimes vigorous disputes, but no orthodox theologian would argue that we have an exhaustive knowledge of God. All would argue that our knowledge is limited and finite, yet true because God has revealed, progressively as Martin has said.

I think Martin did explain it well. I would add one complication I'll explain in a minute.

Quoteno orthodox theologian would argue that we have an exhaustive knowledge of God That's true but somewhat deceptive. I doubt anyone would argue we have an exhaustive knowledge, but I bet very nearly all would argue we know some things very definitely. Does God oppose homosexuality? Yes, he made it very clear in his book. No, society wasn't ready for this, his book should be seen as baby talk on that point. The orthodox theologians don't agree but they are certain they are right. Maybe that's a bad example, I dunno, but while no theologian claims we know everything, most of them are pretty certain about what they think they do know.

Here's the complication: time. As society grows and changes, do we ever become ready for new insights? Will God reveal new truths, possibly even ones that contradict what came before? John and orthodox theologians have to argue no, I think, because they claim the canon is closed. I've never seen a defendable argument for closing the canon and think it should remain open - and in fact is still being written today.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:47 am

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 02:06AM Exodus 32 text

Now back to the narrative. By the way have you noticed how the writer gives us some narrative, and then leaves us hanging while he tells us about the laws, or the tabernacle (aka sanctuary) or priestly gear.
Yes. It's as if they had two texts to hand, which they stuck together like a riffle-shuffled deck of cards...

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 02:06AMQuestions and Observations

- Had God just told the People not to worship him as an idol?
Exodus 20:4-5 (*) is a clear prohibition of this behaviour, and Exodus 24:3 (**) a clear description of the assent of the Israelites to live by them. So as written, I'd say yes.

(*) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them
(**) Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules.[a] And all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 02:06AM - It looks like the People might have been worried that they had lost Moses as he had been in the cloud for 40 days and nights, so they created a tangible idol of God to represent him. The idol was meant to represent the god who had just rescued them from the Egyptians. So what's wrong with this?

- Well apart from the fact that they are doing what they were told not to do, I reckon that the idol degraded God. They had just been told to sey up a rich palace for God to live in, indicating that he was Royalty, but instead they wanted to represent him by a cow. Please read How to make a Good impression on the Powerful God that wants to live with you.

- So it seems that the bible is saying that its not ok to worship God anyway you please, or to have your own conception of him. You need to get it right.
Ah yes, you answered your own question...

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 02:06AM - I don't imagine the task of killing friends and neighbours was easy. Why do you think Moses thought it was necessary?
The act of a desperate political hard man in a desperate moment of a desperate period. Time after time throughout history rulers have preferred to soak the ground in the blood of their people rather than step aside. Bashar al-Assad is perhaps the most recent example to have deployed this mentality.
Make people desperate enough to get on with you by brutal acts, and you get your own way... The bully wins, not a happy lesson for those who like to see justice done. Seems a classic power play to me - Moses calls on the loyalties of his Levite clan to traumatise the rest of the tribes into order. More and more, I find Moses as portrayed to be a thoroughly frightening character - a cold but charismatic performer of a man, able to manipulate and command others into brutality without flinching. There seems a pretty much total absence of compassion in him - it's all about deploying leadership to striking effect.

Exodus doesn't even attempt to put the gloss of divine sanction on this episode - it's presented as the will of Moses, though he does sell it to the Levites as God-commanded. But this seems more in the way of assumed authority - because Moses is doing it, God must have said so. It does attempt to put Moses's act into a kinder context by asserting that God wanted to do worse things (v10: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them), but there's only a limited amount of smoothing that such a jagged point will take.

One could wonder with a believer's hat on whether Moses's slaughter was intended to take the place of God's vengeance on the Israelites. One could even argue that slaughter + plague < consumed all by God's hot wrath.

The plague is most cursorily dealt with. One could easily imagine 3,000 dead bodies spreading disease without resorting to non-worldly explanations.

With a non-believer's hat on, the episode reads like a smoothing over of an attempted revolution; the Israelites took the opportunity afforded by Moses's absence to attempt to squeeze him and his techniques out. Moses responded with large-scale bloody reprisals. It's a single chapter immediately after 7 fairly inconsequential chapters of fine detail about temple adornments - but it has the feel of something much more crucial than it wants to let on; if Moses hadn't bloodily re-established power, would we have had Judaism as it became? Christianity? Islam? This was a civil war.

A different point - the Levites were commanded to each kill "his brother and his companion and his neighbour", and we are told that this totalled about 3,000 people. So let's estimate that there were 3,000/3 = 1,000 adult male Levites, thus 2,000 total Levites (ish). If all 12 tribes were the same size, that would total 24,000 Israelites. Compare with the 600,000 we were told left Egypt - we already sincerely doubted that number, but here is further suggestion that it is at least a factor of 10 too high. I think we have to assume that "brother" doesn't mean "male sibling" in this instance - surely the male sibling of a Levite would be another Levite?

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:02 am

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 06, 2016, 08:00PMThe altar in ch27 and ch30 have different dimensions and accessories. In ch30 the use of the altar is specified but not in ch27. Where's the duplication Dave?
My bad. Should have compared more closely. Evidently this was a two-altar sanctuary.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 06, 2016, 08:00PMDo you think there was a reason for God showing off?
Because Moses was the one claiming to the people to be interpreting his words; Moses was a showman, and the claim of divine sanction was his standard tool for goading people into action. I sense that isn't an answer you're likely to find satisfying, however...

I've clipped out various other parts of your post, rather than just say several times: Oh yes, that makes sense. Good post, thanks.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:23 am

Exodus 33 text

Highlights

- The Israelites are to leave Mount Sinai

Summary

- God commands Moses to tell the Israelites to leave Mount Sinai and move to the lands promised in Abraham's covenant.
- He also tells Moses that he absents himself from them, in case he should become so angry with them that he destroys them. People are sad at this.
- It is related how Moses and Joshua play a magic trick to make it appear that Moses regularly talks to God in a tent.
- Moses pleads with God to come with them. God agrees, under conditions.

Questions and Observations

1) The promised land will be empty for them when they arrive, it is promised here, the population driven away by a vanguard angel. As I recall, this is not how things turn out, is it?
2) Moses still loves his magic tricks. Joshua we see as his apprentice.
3) God: "for man shall not see me and live". This is new, isn't it? Plenty of men have dealt with him already.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:20 pm

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 07, 2016, 05:47AM
Ah yes, you answered your own question...

I couldn't help myself.

Hopefully you thought about it before you read my answer.

QuoteOne could wonder with a believer's hat on whether Moses's slaughter was intended to take the place of God's vengeance on the Israelites. One could even argue that slaughter + plague < consumed all by God's hot wrath.

The plague is most cursorily dealt with. One could easily imagine 3,000 dead bodies spreading disease without resorting to non-worldly explanations.

I think that
- Moses was mad at them
- God had appointed Moses as mediator/middle manager between himself and the People, so Moses had some authority to make decisions like that
- Moses thought that there had to be consequences, and as you say punishing a few thousand was better than having the whole nation wiped out and maybe the least punishment that he thought God would accept.
- But I don't think I see Moses as callous enough to have made that decision easy.

I'm not 100% certain about this. its just what I think at the moment.

Would you have characterised Moses as a Bashar hard man type before this or the situation as one where Moses should have stepped aside?

QuoteA different point - the Levites were commanded to each kill "his brother and his companion and his neighbour", and we are told that this totalled about 3,000 people. So let's estimate that there were 3,000/3 = 1,000 adult male Levites, thus 2,000 total Levites (ish). If all 12 tribes were the same size, that would total 24,000 Israelites. Compare with the 600,000 we were told left Egypt - we already sincerely doubted that number, but here is further suggestion that it is at least a factor of 10 too high. I think we have to assume that "brother" doesn't mean "male sibling" in this instance - surely the male sibling of a Levite would be another Levite?

I was sure that you would notice this. And I agree with your understanding of brother not being literal.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:11 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 07, 2016, 04:55AM
That's true but somewhat deceptive. I doubt anyone would argue we have an exhaustive knowledge, but I bet very nearly all would argue we know some things very definitely. Does God oppose homosexuality? Yes, he made it very clear in his book. No, society wasn't ready for this, his book should be seen as baby talk on that point.

Hi Tim

It seems you are assuming that the reason that God was against homosexuality (homosexual practices actually) was that society wasn't ready for it. Is that right? Or is there some other correlation?

What if God was against homosexual practices for his own reasons. Why do you think that the reason God is against homosex is because or equivalent to society not being ready for it?

Skip forward 2000 years or so from Exodus and the bible (yeah I know you're not a fan of Paul) is still on message about homosex. But it was definitely accepted in the greek/roman culture that Paul is writing to. The interesting thing is that Paul claimed that there were a number of OT teachings and practices that were not applicable after the cross or not applicable to Gentiles. Homosex was not one of these. (I take Paul as a spokesman for God, just as Moses was in the OT) So I conclude that even though society may have been ready for homosex, God hadn't changed his mind.

QuoteThe orthodox theologians don't agree but they are certain they are right. Maybe that's a bad example, I dunno, but while no theologian claims we know everything, most of them are pretty certain about what they think they do know.

Ironical isn't it.

QuoteHere's the complication: time. As society grows and changes, do we ever become ready for new insights? Will God reveal new truths, possibly even ones that contradict what came before? John and orthodox theologians have to argue no, I think, because they claim the canon is closed. I've never seen a defendable argument for closing the canon and think it should remain open - and in fact is still being written today.

Insight sounds like its something we have discovered, rather than a revelation that we have been given. I don't know whether your use of 'insight' was significant, but if it was then it probably indicates that you have a different understanding of biblical inspiration to us conservatives as well as a different view of canon. That makes conversing about either one of those difficult. IMHO

What makes you think that stuff being written today qualifies as scripture? Can you give me an example of some?

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:30 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 07, 2016, 04:55AM Will God reveal new truths, possibly even ones that contradict what came before?

I Think that Eclesiastes reveals that even though we feel like we live in a 'new' world (we hear this all the time from young people - in fact, we thought the same thing when we were first starting out), in reality, everything is the same. Same God, same Earth. There is nothing new under the Sun.

On issues of morality, young people like to think that the old morality was for the old geezers, but we're different. New World, the age of Aquarius, whoopee! God was just spoon feeding the old geezers, we're ready for the full meal.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:20 am

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 02:20PMWould you have characterised Moses as a Bashar hard man type before this or the situation as one where Moses should have stepped aside?
To me it seems pretty clear that all of these patriarchs would have been ruthless wielders of power. At that time, in that place, to have been otherwise would have been to invite deposition. In light of modern morals, I find certain of their actions severely lacking - but I also recognise that judging people in different historical contexts with modern morals is to play a rigged game that they are guaranteed to lose at. You do the task that's in front of you, and the task that was in front of Moses in this narrative was to, without any modern conveniences or comforts, persuade a large group of people to throw off an oppressive leadership, cross the desert, and form a new society. It seems narratively inevitable that there would be bloodshed en route.

I suspect that, if he existed in even vaguely the kind of sense described, the historical Moses would have been an extremely effective leader of a Bronze Age proto-state - and the very fact that he is remembered today is strong supporting evidence for this. Very few individuals indeed of that era are now known by name to us. That was a role whose job description required much "hard man" type stuff. All the magic shows might suggest, in mitigation for him, that he was actually trying to minimise the amount of it he needed to deploy. But no doubt he was a ruthless individual who it could be very dangerous to be around.

I would turn around the moral judgement of the Moses-Assad comparison - Moses lived in a context where it was inevitable. Does Assad? Tbh, I don't know enough about Syria to answer that question properly. But I suspect that the answer is No, and that the difference is made by what all the rest of us living in the world at the same time deem reasonable behaviour. To judge Assad doesn't really fall within the remit of a book-reading thread, however...

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:01 am

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 04:20AM
I would turn around the moral judgement of the Moses-Assad comparison - Moses lived in a context where it was inevitable. Does Assad? Tbh, I don't know enough about Syria to answer that question properly. But I suspect that the answer is No,

I am not so sure. Iraq is an example where a hard man dictator was removed and the country fell into chaos. Attempts to install democracy anywhere in that region have usually been failures. We may have to wait much longer for sufficient culture shifts to take place.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:10 am

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 07, 2016, 03:11PM
Insight sounds like its something we have discovered, rather than a revelation that we have been given. I don't know whether your use of 'insight' was significant, but if it was then it probably indicates that you have a different understanding of biblical inspiration to us conservatives as well as a different view of canon.
That's a fair point.

Okay, I propose we consider three different terms: insight, inspiration, and revelation.

I suggest the following explanations:
Insight is a purely human based attempt at understanding something based on observation, logic, and rational thinking. There can be fairly solid certainty with respect to purely material matters, but much less if we go outside that realm.

Inspiration is partly human and partly God; it is the attempt to be sensitive to the will of God, and relies on input, but there is an uncertainty factor. It requires sincere effort on the part of humans, but ultimately can't be successful without some attention from above. Certainty can be hard to evaluate.

Revelation is a purely God centered dictation, cramming his will into our brains. To the extent we believe a message is received this way, we are likely to perceive a high degree of certainty.

What do you think? Any merit in breaking it down this way?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:13 am

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 07, 2016, 03:30PMI Think that Eclesiastes reveals that even though we feel like we live in a 'new' world (we hear this all the time from young people - in fact, we thought the same thing when we were first starting out), in reality, everything is the same. Same God, same Earth. There is nothing new under the Sun.

You're missing something.

Ecclesiastes was written at the level of understanding of the times. In other words, quite possibly God's baby talk. You can't use it as evidence that new understanding isn't possible - if as John suggests baby talk exists, then we can't rule out that Ecclesiastes is of that nature.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:33 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 05:13AMYou're missing something.

Ecclesiastes was written at the level of understanding of the times. In other words, quite possibly God's baby talk. You can't use it as evidence that new understanding isn't possible - if as John suggests baby talk exists, then we can't rule out that Ecclesiastes is of that nature.
Reply moved to Religion Matters: Take 3.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:39 am

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 05:01AMI am not so sure.
I am not even slightly sure. All I said was "suspect".