TromboneChat

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. 

Maybe, it would be better understanding if we replace 'baby talk' with 'laymen's terms'.

If a scientist is trying to tell me how a plane flies, he may be using the scientific language, and I don't know that language, so I say, hey, explain it to me using 'laymen's terms'. That is just a way to communicate the same principles using terms that I can understand. The principles are the same regardless.

The principles in Ecllesiastes are the same regardless, baby talk, laymen's terms, to Godspeak. The message is the same. IOW, there is nothing new under the Sun. If God considered Homosex a sin then, He considers a sin today.

What changed? Nothing. People always trying to justify their sin.
 

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 05:50AMThe principles in Ecllesiastes are the same regardless, baby talk, laymen's terms, to Godspeak. The message is the same. IOW, there is nothing new under the Sun. If God considered Homosex a sin then, He considers a sin today.
A better expression of the layman's terms/Godspeak idear, would be that God kind of sadly allows his children to feel okay about their homophobia because they're just not ready to get past it and they need to work on more rudimentary issues, a large part of which is learning to get more comfortable about themselves and less insecure and concerned with irrelevant and trivial concerns about the details of other peoples' entirely personal inclinations.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 05:50AMMaybe, it would be better understanding if we replace 'baby talk' with 'laymen's terms'.

If a scientist is trying to tell me how a plane flies, he may be using the scientific language, and I don't know that language, so I say, hey, explain it to me using 'laymen's terms'. That is just a way to communicate the same principles using terms that I can understand. The principles are the same regardless.

The principles in Ecllesiastes are the same regardless, baby talk, laymen's terms, to Godspeak. The message is the same. IOW, there is nothing new under the Sun. If God considered Homosex a sin then, He considers a sin today.

What changed? Nothing. People always trying to justify their sin.

A small selection of things that were considered a sin then that I defy you to assert to me that you regard as sin now:

 - Not making tassels on the corners of your garment (Deut 22:12)
 - Wearing cloth of wool and linen mixed together (Deut 22:11)
 - A woman not crying out loudly enough to be heard when being raped (Deut 22:24)

There are some really weird and unpleasant things decreed in Deuteronomy 22 and roundabout, supposedly the word of God. For example, vv28-29: A man who rapes a virgin who is not betrothed must take her as his wife and never divorce her. Again, I defy you to assert to me that you support this.

Clearly, some sins have changed in Christianity over the eras, to the extent that I find it impossible to believe that you could subscribe to the above examples. Who has judged which to alter? People.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jan 08, 2016, 06:09AM
A better expression of the layman's terms/Godspeak idear, would be that God kind of sadly allows his children to feel okay about their homophobia because they're just not ready to get past it and they need to work on more rudimentary issues, a large part of which is learning to get more comfortable about themselves and less insecure and concerned with irrelevant and trivial concerns about the details of other peoples' entirely personal inclinations.

Why would God allow His children to believe a lie?

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 06:17AMA small selection of things that were considered a sin then that I defy you to assert to me that you regard as sin now:

 - Not making tassels on the corners of your garment (Deut 22:12)
 - Wearing cloth of wool and linen mixed together (Deut 22:11)
 - A woman not crying out loudly enough to be heard when being raped (Deut 22:24)

There are some really weird and unpleasant things decreed in Deuteronomy 22 and roundabout, supposedly the word of God. For example, vv28-29: A man who rapes a virgin who is not betrothed must take her as his wife and never divorce her. Again, I defy you to assert to me that you support this.

Clearly, some sins have changed in Christianity over the eras, to the extent that I find it impossible to believe that you could subscribe to the above examples. Who has judged which to alter? People.


Deut 22:

Here is one you missed:
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
I guess God didn't like cross dressing and other LGBT activities back then either.



8 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Actually, God did consider rape a sin, or violation.




11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

I'm not familiar with clothing in that time era, maybe, this was an issue of dressing sexy, or in a way that would raise the hormone level of the opposite sex. ?? I don't know. The clothing back then was definitely more limiting back then than the fashions that we have today. Either way, it made sense to them back then even though it might not make sense to us today. I'm confidant that the principles behind those edicts are still valid to us today.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 06:25AMWhy would God allow His children to believe a lie?
A better expression of the layman's terms/Godspeak idear, would be that God kind of sadly allows his children to feel okay about their homophobia because they're just not ready to get past it and they need to work on more rudimentary issues, a large part of which is learning to get more comfortable about themselves and less insecure and concerned with irrelevant and trivial concerns about the details of other peoples' entirely personal inclinations.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 05:50AMMaybe, it would be better understanding if we replace 'baby talk' with 'laymen's terms'.

 

No, that would not be better understanding.

The whole point of the "baby talk" referenced by John is we will NOT know it is baby talk.  You would request "layman's terms" when you did not understand something and knew you didn't understand it.  In the case of God's baby talk there is no way for you to know you really didn't understand it. 

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 06:38AMEither way, it made sense to them back then even though it might not make sense to us today. I'm confidant that the principles behind those edicts are still valid to us today.
This is exactly it. You are confident that you can ignore the letter of that command and replace it with some other related content that you prefer. You, a fallible person (like all of us - not poking at you specifically).

That's not Biblical literalism, that's interpretation. In light of that, excuse me if I don't find appeals to other verses alongside these convincing justifications of either your Christian position or of absolute moral worth on particular subjects.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 08, 2016, 06:50AMNo, that would not be better understanding.

The whole point of the "baby talk" referenced by John is we will NOT know it is baby talk.  You would request "layman's terms" when you did not understand something and knew you didn't understand it.  In the case of God's baby talk there is no way for you to know you really didn't understand it. 

My point is that the 'it' doesn't change, no matter baby talk, layman's terms, or whatever God uses to teach us what He wanted to communicate to us. The 'It' is always the same 'it'. Therefore, homosex was a sin then and is a sin today. The 'it' didn't change.

But another point is that you can't be certain what the "it" is, with this "baby talk" idea. "It" could very well be the maintenance of an acceptable level of population density. In ancient times, it seemed imperative to outbreed all around you. Now, we live in a cramped environment, and committing homosexually helps keep the rate of population increase down.

In this case, the "baby talk" version of "create the right number of replacement humans for yourself" could very easily take forms such as "don't be gay" - these tribespeople weren't ready to hear instructions about how the great success of human expansion in 3,000 years time would require different behaviour.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 07:02AMMy point is that the 'it' doesn't change, no matter baby talk, layman's terms, or whatever God uses to teach us what He wanted to communicate to us. The 'It' is always the same 'it'. Therefore, homosex was a sin then and is a sin today. The 'it' didn't change.


Suppose for the sake of the argument the "it" does not change.

But you misunderstood what God meant by it.  (If you were to actually read the Gospels, you'd see that most of Jesus's ministry was trying to correct the misunderstanding of God's will.  He NEVER released anyone from a commandment, but he did reinterpret them for God's intent rather than the letter of the law.)  

So the it remains but your perception of it can change, 180 degrees if necessary.  

This can apply to all of the examples listed just above by others.  And to sexuality.  

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 07:08AM

In this case, the "baby talk" version of "create the right number of replacement humans for yourself" could very easily take forms such as "don't be gay" - these tribespeople weren't ready to hear instructions about how the great success of human expansion in 3,000 years time would require different behaviour.

For completeness you should add another complication.

Some of OT is God's adult talk, some of it is God's baby talk, and some of it is neither, just purely human ideas that got mixed in with the good stuff.

How could you tell the difference?

(I have left out the other possibility that ALL of it is human invention, because that one ends the possibility of discussion.) 

Bottomline, there is no way to confuse what the bible states when it states that it is a sin for men to lust after men, and women to lust after women. That is clear as a bell.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 07:17AMBottomline, there is no way to confuse what the bible states when it states that it is a sin for men to lust after men, and women to lust after women. That is clear as a bell.
In other words you're just not remotely on board with the whole Godtalk/Baby Talk thing.
 
That is clear as a bell. That's fine though--it's kinda the entire point of it after all.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 07:17AMBottomline, there is no way to confuse what the bible states when it states that it is a sin for men to lust after men, and women to lust after women. That is clear as a bell.

Sorry Dusty, I must disagree. It's just now been demonstrated that you think that other things in nearby verses that are on the face of the words equally clear are in fact incorrect.

I don't know why homosexuality still attracts such a bad rap from you and others of like mind when wearing mixed fibres gets a free pass. It doesn't seem logical.

As there's some non-narrative discussion getting going here, of which I'm as guilty as anyone else for encouraging, let's return to our core mission...

Exodus 34 text

Highlights

 - God tells Moses to come up to him on the mountain with fresh tablets for laws.
 - Some commandments regiven.
 - Talking to God now gives Moses shining facial skin.

Summary

 - God commands Moses to cut fresh tablets of stone and bring them to him on Mount Sinai to be inscribed with laws.
 - He commands to Moses that the Israelites proceed into the promised land.
 - He observes to Moses that he will drive out the current inhabitants of those lands in advance, and that they should break up all their religious works that they come across and avoid entering into contracts with them, to avoid difficulty.
 - Commandments are given; these do not match the 'classic' 10.
 - When Moses returns from his talk with God, his facial skin shines. This is now what happens when Moses talks to God.

Questions and Observations

1) This restatement of commandments makes me wonder whether the earlier commandment statement's inclusion of the graven idols one might have been later inserted in order to provide a clear justification for the War of Aaron's Calf. Just a thought.
2) Talking to God made Moses's skin shine? This is new; talking to God hasn't made this happen to Moses before. Moses has broken out his stocks of glitter-paint here...

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 07:28AMSorry Dusty, I must disagree. We've just demonstrated that you think that other things in nearby verses that are on the face of the words equally clear are in fact incorrect.

I don't know why homosexuality still attracts such a bad rap from you and others of like mind when wearing mixed fibres gets a free pass. It doesn't seem logical.

You have demonstrated that your understanding is misunderstood. Look, believe whatever you want. Homosexuality is just one of many sins that are listed in the bible. It has no special place for me. It's just that some people on here keep trying to justify it, and when that fails, then its the bible that is at fault, and when that fails, it is our understanding of the bible that is at fault, whereas, it might be speaking the truth which must not be the case. Those are the people that are obsessing about it as a sin, not me. We are all sinners and those that engage in homosex are no more a sinner than I am.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 08, 2016, 07:34AM Homosexuality is just one of many sins that are listed in the bible.
Yes, but you've decided that approximately 602 of those 613 commandments are no longer valid and the actions are no longer sins.  You're only keeping your few pet sins, 1.63% of the original ones. 

I know I've been as guilty as anyone, but can we possibly take this discussion to the general religion thread or somewhere else? The Bible summary stuff is getting a bit drowned in this tangent of a tangent.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 07:30AM2) Talking to God made Moses's skin shine? This is new; talking to God hasn't made this happen to Moses before. Moses has broken out his stocks of glitter-paint here...

I think it should be clearly stated that this is the contract chapter.  God explicitly makes a binding contract (called a covenant) with the people, where He will perform wonders including driving out the rightful owners of the lands, etc., and the people will obey his commands. 

I had forgotten that his face shone so much he had to wear a veil from then on.  Do you suppose he wore a veil for some other reason, and this was the explanation he sold?  A zit made you unclean in those days, and some other lesion would have been even worse.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 08:14AMI know I've been as guilty as anyone, but can we possibly take this discussion to the general religion thread or somewhere else? The Bible summary stuff is getting a bit drowned in this tangent of a tangent.

That's fine by me. Go ahead on, as we say in Texas.

Much of the discussion about baby talk-- laymen's terms is a somewhat acceptable alternative to what the classical theologians meant, but they would probably not used that term.-- needs clarificaation  

The key issue is that in addition to issues of revelation, inspiration, illumination, etc-- all of which the classical theologians had very finely tuned definitions and are not being defined very precisely in some of the discussion above-- there is the topic of progress in revelation that Martin has picked up on.  

What this means is that there is clear progress in biblical eras-various theologians have not always agreed in how this is worked out-- but all have agreed that the progress is progress in REVELATION-- not in human insight.

 In other words, when God speaks to us in simplified language so that we can understand it, it doesn't mean that his moral character changes with the times nor that he decides to adapt his own moral demands to our "new insights."  

Some new human insights, in hindsight, have  been downright nasty-- cf. the eugenics movement supported by a large number of the intellectual class here in the US 100 years ago, which advocated sterilization of handicapped people. lobotomies, and other cruel treatments all in the name of science and progress.

What God accommodating to us means is that He always has to speak in simplified terms for us to understand anything of what He reveals to us because He is an infinite God and we are finite creatures.  He progressively reveals more of His truth.  Some of what He has His people do is time limited, but He makes very clear about that.  The book of Hebrews is a perfect example of a whole biblical book describing the time-bound nature of the animals sacrifices of the Old Testament law.

As Martin has pointed out, the moral issue of homosexuality is handled quite differently in the New Testament, both in explicit rejection by Paul and by implicit acceptance of OT norms on this subject by the silence of Jesus, who was quite willing to challenge the rabbis misreading and mishandling of the OT on occasion after occasion and does not make the slightest attempt to do so on that topic.

The appeal to God's accommodation to justify some things that the Scripture speaks against is not a valid use of the doctrine of accommodation.

If you want to attempt to justify some of the recent moral shifts of our society, then it is difficult to avoid an approach that honestly says that the biblical teaching should be set aside, rather than to attempt to use the doctrine of accommodation.  This, of course, is difficult to square with any orthodox understanding of the nature of biblical revelation.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 08, 2016, 07:30AMAs there's some non-narrative discussion getting going here, of which I'm as guilty as anyone else for encouraging, let's return to our core mission...


Yes sir, sorry sir, at once sir.

QuoteSummary

 1 God commands Moses to cut fresh tablets of stone and bring them to him on Mount Sinai to be inscribed with laws.
 2 He commands to Moses that the Israelites proceed into the promised land.
 3 He observes to Moses that he will drive out the current inhabitants of those lands in advance, and that they should break up all their religious works that they come across and avoid entering into contracts with them, to avoid difficulty.
 4 Commandments are given; these do not match the 'classic' 10.
 5 When Moses returns from his talk with God, his facial skin shines. This is now what happens when Moses talks to God.


Re 1 and 4 : it says in v1 that God would rewrite the original commandments on the tablets that Moses brought up. The instructions that Moses was to write down were different but simeilar.  So for me, what we read here aren't the 10C's, (they haven't changed) but new instructions.



Questions and Observations

1) This restatement of commandments makes me wonder whether the earlier commandment statement's inclusion of the graven idols one might have been later inserted in order to provide a clear justification for the War of Aaron's Calf. Just a thought.
[/quote]

Au contraire mon ami.  I reckon that the inclusion of the prohibition of molten idols in the new instruction was to reinforce the requirement in the original 10C's.  "Don't Do It.  God Doesn't Like It.  Do You Understand?  Pay Attention!  I Really Mean It"

Although I'm not sure why the other instructions were included.  They seem a bit unrelated.  Reiterating the Sabbath Rest.  So it must be important, because it gets mention lots.  But what does that have to do with Unleavened Bread.  Sure its a reminder of the Redemption from Egypt but there doesn't seem to be a connection to the other instructions.

Quote2) Talking to God made Moses's skin shine? This is new; talking to God hasn't made this happen to Moses before. Moses has broken out his stocks of glitter-paint here...

Glitter paint!  Don't be silly.  Everyone knows that he found a cache of skin cleanser that made his skin glow with fresh vitality.

We read that the glowing skin made the People afraid of him.  So I'm guessing that it may have been a reminder for them not to misbehave again.  "Don't cross this guy, he's got fresh glowing skin" Its much nicer than killing a few thousand every morning.

Or it could have been verification that Moses actually had been talking to God and wasn't just making it up as he went along.  This would have been a reminder to the People to behave too.

Isn't that proof that Mary Kay was there?

Imagine how much an advertising spot in the Bible for them could have been worth! Forget James Bond and his Aston Martin, this could have been the product placement to end all product placements...

Another set of chapters that basically cover one less important subtopic to work through here...

Exodus 35 text
Exodus 36 text
Exodus 37 text
Exodus 38 text
Exodus 39 text
Exodus 40 text

Highlights

 - The Tabernacle is built

Summary

 - The prohibition about working on the Sabbath is repeated once more.
 - The Israelites volunteer for the various Tabernacle-construction tasks that suit their skills.
 - Bezalel and Oholiab oversee the work and provide artistic input.
 - Constructions of objects and garments are performed, as specified in Exodus 25-31.

Questions and Observations

1) This all seems very straightforward - like a technical manual.
2) Exodus finishes with a final few verses about the pillar of cloud settling on the Tabernacle. When it's there, Moses can't enter - which seems odd - in Exodus 33, it was specifically when the pillar of cloud settled on the Tent of Meeting that Moses was said to communicate with God inside.

So that concludes Exodus. I'll write myself a little narrative summary when I've reviewed what we said.

As an intro to the Exodus story summary, the same for Genesis, as the two run on into each other, more or less:

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 05, 2015, 05:14AMHere we are - the story so far, Book of Genesis:

We start with big picture stuff.

Creation
 - Days of creation, the world and everything in it, Adam and Eve.
 - Tempting of Eve by the serpent; Eve and Adam eat the forbidden fruit.
 - The Fall; A&E expelled from the garden.
The first attempt at a human world
 - Cain murders Abel.
 - Humans spread. Some of them are bad people.
 - Many generations pass.
The flood
 - God becomes weary of human misbehaviour.
 - Noah told to build boat, gather family and animals.
 - Earth is flooded, everything else dies. [A point that we missed at the time occurs to me - if this is true, why do we have trees now? Did Noah take seeds as well?]
The second attempt at a human world
 - Many generations pass; listed lifespans decrease so rapidly that Noah's son Shem outlives all of them.
 - Language creation comes from the Tower of Babel story; Hebrew is specified as the earlier original language.

Now the narrative focusses in on more detail, dealing with the (mis)adventures of Abraham and his family.

Abraham
 - Abram starts out from Ur (modern-day Iraq), travelling extensively with family. He takes in Haran (modern-day Turkey), Canaan (modern-day Israel), the Negeb (desert region in the South of modern-day Israel) Egypt, where Abram and Sarai are evidently politically highly placed, Canaan again. He dwells by the Oaks of Mamre, and is buried in the Cave of Machpelah.
 - God promises Abram and Sarai lots of descendants, renames them Abraham and Sarah, demands circumcision. Isaac shows up late in life, a half-brother for Ishmael, who is banished along his mother Hagar, but also has lots of descendants.
 - Lot escapes Sodom, which Abraham pleads for.
 - Abraham gets out of sacrificing Isaac.
Isaac
 - Abraham's servant brings back Rebekah, a cousin-wife for Isaac.
 - They have twins, Esau and Jacob.
Jacob
 - Jacob subverts Esau's inheritance, and is banished. But Rebekah favours Jacob, and Isaac goes along with it.
 - Jacob is ostensibly sent away to find a cousin-wife. He ends up serving Laban for many years for this, but comes away with two wives (Leah and Rachel) and two concubines (Bilhah and Zilpah), eventually having various sons with all of them.
 - Jacob returns, fearful of Esau's reception. But Esau welcomes him.
 - He is renamed 'Israel'.
 - Jacob's sons create local trouble and he has to move.
Joseph
 - Joseph, Rachel's oldest son, is favoured by Jacob. His brothers resent this and sell him into slavery.
 - Sold to Egypt, he works for highly placed Potiphar, but his wife conspires to jail him.
 - He rises from jail through skill in interpreting dreams prophetically, becoming one of the foremost administrators of the land.
 - Having prepared for famine, Egypt fares well under his stewardship. His family, unknowingly, come to ask him for help.
 - After several turns, he then welcomes them to Egypt, where they take up residence. All live happily ever after...

Or do they...?

And then, Exodus:

Moses rises
 - Three generations have passed. The Israelites are now resented in Egypt and treated as a servant/slave class.
 - Pharaoh orders Israelite children killed. The baby Moses is placed on the Nile in a basket to escape this fate, and is rescued by Pharaoh's daughter.
 - Moses has a divine commission to extract the Israelites from Egypt.
 - A battle of wills is played, with plagues punishing Pharaoh.
 - The final plague is the death of the Egyptian firstborn, and is the explanation given for the Jewish festival of PAssover.
 - Eventually Moses gets his way; the Israelites all leave Egypt. Pharaoh rethinks, chasing them, but his troops are killed by the returning waters of the Red Sea.
The Wandering in the Desert, part 1
 - The Israelites begin their 40 years en route to their new home, moving between various places.
 - Moses is their acknowledged leader, but he faces a goodly portion of dissent.
 - When hungry, they are supplied with manna by God.
 - Joshua becomes a powerful figure in Israelite society, leading armed forces against the Amalekites.
 - Moses lays out secular laws, with help from Jethro, his father-in-law.
Mount Sinai
 - The Israelites reach the mountain.
 - Here Moses finds much to communicate with God about.
 - Divine covenants are regiven, and phrased more bloodily.
 - Sacred laws are given, and engraved on stone tablets.
 - God specifies to Moses over several days on the mountain how his portable temple ("tabernacle") is to be built by the Israelites.
 - While Moses is absent, Aaron mounts a coup, replacing God with a golden calf object.
 - When Moses returns, bloody reprisals are mounted to bring the Israelites back into line. The stone tablets are broken.
 - The command is given for the Israelites to prepare to move on from Mount Sinai.
 - The stone tablets are regiven.
 - The Israelites pull together to construct the tabernacle.

While I'm here, I'll also have a stab at the thematic type summary that Martin made for Genesis, but for Exodus. Here's Martin's Genesis summary:

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PMWe've finished Genesis, so I thought it would be an idea to do my overview and ask some questions to see if you were paying attention

Themes - this is what I noticed

- Creation : we've had 3 accounts of creation, heaven and the earth in chapter 1, Eden in chapter 2 and then a new start in the flood - ch 6-9
- Sibling Rivalry : there was lots of this wasn't there, Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers
- Infertility : Sarah, Rachel and Rebekah.  All needed God to get things going.
- Covenants and promises : Adam and Eve, Noah, and finally with Abraham and his descendants.  And it was important to God that his promises were believed.
- Lies and deceit : the serpent, and most of the patriarchs are liars.

Analysis of the text
- Genre : its basically a narrative: where the narrator and God are reliable and generally well informed
- Repetitions : there are lots.  I think that they are there for a purpose and not just random
- the text is very selective of the events it tells : just what the writer wants.

Questions and Observations
(these were mainly new things I've noticed or thought of)

- What concept of God does Genesis promote?
- How do the women of Genesis make their way and achieve their own agendas in this male-dominated and patriarchal society?
- Of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph's brothers, who most deserves to go to prison? Why are so many of the patriarchs crooks? What does this imply about the relationship between God's promises and human virtues or human history?
- God makes big promises, but what are the major problems that get in the way of their fulfillment?  How are the problems overcome?
- How do Abraham and Jacob relate to God? Would you characterize them as faithful, impious, demanding, argumentative, or what?  Are these put forward as valid ways of relating to God?
- What are the sexual mores of this text? What kind of sex is good, bad, or indifferent?

As always, your contribution is welcome.

And stay tuned for the next Episode where we find out what happens to the chosen family in Egypt after Joseph dies.

And here's my adaptation of that for Exodus:

Themes - this is what I noticed

 - Moses as a strong leader, and the sole mouthpiece of God.
 - The high price of disobeying God - the Israelites and Egyptians both caught out at different times. It seems that Moses's God concept was still fighting off other local God concepts at this time.
 - The need for laws ("Moses the Lawgiver").
 - The reiteration of earlier prophecies.

Analysis of the text

- Genre: It's basically a narrative; where the narrator and God are reliable and generally well informed (pasted from Martin's conclusion on Genesis.). It's a more focussed narrative than Genesis by design - while Genesis's brief was "go back as far as you can", Exodus's brief was "cover this bit". Much easier to cover coherently as a writer.
- Repetitions: Not nearly as many as in Genesis. Exodus is a smoother text, as was the final portion of Genesis.
- Framing: While Genesis was massively selective of the events it narrated, Exodus is somewhat more detailed. But only somewhat; it still skirts over a lot of potentially useful stuff. It also devotes about a third of the book to detailed descriptions of the tabernacle, which are of only limited interest to the modern reader.

Questions and Observations

1) How does the Exodus concept of God vary from the Genesis concept(s) of God?
2) Genesis portrays for us a number of strong female characters. Exodus in contrast is almost completely devoid of females that drive the action.
3) Martin talked of the Genesis patriarchs being morally dubious people. Moses is also morally dubious, but on a different level - the impression we get is of a charismatic and feared leader in full charge - this is a development from the impressions we received of his forebears, Joseph slightly excepted.
4) God's big promises from Genesis are reiterated a number of times - almost in desperation, by the end. The problems in front of them loom very large.
5) The way Moses relates to God has a different flavour to the way the various Genesis patriarchs related to him.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 10, 2016, 12:31PMAnother set of chapters that basically cover one less important subtopic to work through here...

Exodus 35 text
Exodus 36 text
Exodus 37 text
Exodus 38 text
Exodus 39 text
Exodus 40 text

Highlights

 - The Tabernacle is built


I'd also add as a couple of highlights :

 - God rescues/redeems/saves his People
 - God moves in and starts living with his People.

Quote
Summary

 - The prohibition about working on the Sabbath is repeated once more.
 - The Israelites volunteer for the various Tabernacle-construction tasks that suit their skills.
 - Bezalel and Oholiab oversee the work and provide artistic input.
 - Constructions of objects and garments are performed, as specified in Exodus 25-31.

Questions and Observations

1) This all seems very straightforward - like a technical manual.

This series of chapters basically repeats the chapters that provide the tabernacle's specification - confirming that it was built to spec. I think that its also repeated to highlight its importance.  God was now living among his people and this was his home. Right in the middle of their camp.  Lots of prestige for them, but also a dangerous, because they have to behave, and they've seen what happens to those that don't.

Quote2) Exodus finishes with a final few verses about the pillar of cloud settling on the Tabernacle. When it's there, Moses can't enter - which seems odd - in Exodus 33, it was specifically when the pillar of cloud settled on the Tent of Meeting that Moses was said to communicate with God inside.

I guess the difference is that the Tabernacle is God's home and the Tent wasn't.  There are going to be lots of rules specifying how, when, where and who can come into God's house. It will also be interesting to see if this changes the way God communicates with Moses and/or the people.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 10, 2016, 01:33PMWhile I'm here, I'll also have a stab at the thematic type summary that Martin made for Genesis, but for Exodus. Here's Martin's Genesis summary:

And here's my adaptation of that for Exodus:

Themes - this is what I noticed

 - Moses as a strong leader, and the sole mouthpiece of God.
 - The high price of disobeying God - the Israelites and Egyptians both caught out at different times. It seems that Moses's God concept was still fighting off other local God concepts at this time.
 - The need for laws ("Moses the Lawgiver").
 - The reiteration of earlier prophecies.

Analysis of the text

- Genre: It's basically a narrative; where the narrator and God are reliable and generally well informed (pasted from Martin's conclusion on Genesis.). It's a more focussed narrative than Genesis by design - while Genesis's brief was "go back as far as you can", Exodus's brief was "cover this bit". Much easier to cover coherently as a writer.
- Repetitions: Not nearly as many as in Genesis. Exodus is a smoother text, as was the final portion of Genesis.
- Framing: While Genesis was massively selective of the events it narrated, Exodus is somewhat more detailed. But only somewhat; it still skirts over a lot of potentially useful stuff. It also devotes about a third of the book to detailed descriptions of the tabernacle, which are of only limited interest to the modern reader.

Questions and Observations

1) How does the Exodus concept of God vary from the Genesis concept(s) of God?
2) Genesis portrays for us a number of strong female characters. Exodus in contrast is almost completely devoid of females that drive the action.
3) Martin talked of the Genesis patriarchs being morally dubious people. Moses is also morally dubious, but on a different level - the impression we get is of a charismatic and feared leader in full charge - this is a development from the impressions we received of his forebears, Joseph slightly excepted.
4) God's big promises from Genesis are reiterated a number of times - almost in desperation, by the end. The problems in front of them loom very large.
5) The way Moses relates to God has a different flavour to the way the various Genesis patriarchs related to him.

Another book done. 

It's been interesting for me, going through Exodus like this.  I'm noticing different details to what I have before.  Possibly because of the type of treeatment we're doing and also the atheist influence,   by that I mean seeing the text presented from a non-believers perspective. 

Re Questions and Observations

1) Its interesting to see how this changes.  I see it as a matter of people learning more about God rather than changing their mind about what he should be like.  ISTM that in Genesis the characters didn't know too much about God: he would appear and make promises or give instructions, but that's about it.  In Exodus the People start to get to know God: what he likes, how dangerous he is ... We see God start to fulfil the promises he made to them (Abraham...).  And God moves in to live with them.

Another God highlight for me, is that he is not now just the God of some individuals (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) but the God of Israel the nation, and there is a treaty/covenant that governs this relationship.  I'd also note that the phrase "the God of Israel" doesn't just or mainly mean that he is the God that Israel believes in but has similar implications and direction to saying that he is the King of Israel, ie its about God's status not just Israels belief. This shows for example where Dave mentioned that he wouldn't want to be one of God's chosen one's because he mistreated them just to get achieve his purpose.

2) The "girls" don't get large roles in this book.  Where is Rey when you need her.  But where they appear, they have significant roles:  Moses mum saves his life by putting him in the basket in the Nile, Pharaoh's daughter saves Moses life, and gives him access to "how to lead a nation" training, the midwives thwart Pharaoh's evil plot, Zipporah saves Moses from God by circumcising their son and telling Moses "Surely, a bridegroom of blood you are to me".  That's my favourite quote in the book.

3) Moses doesn't strike me as morally dubious in the same sense as the patriarchs.  They lied and stole.  Moses was a tough but honest leader and judge and mostly wanted to do the "right thing" as leader.  So having several thousand men killed was a harsh penalty for their idol worship but it seems to have been done so that God wouldn't kill everyone.

4) I'm not sure where you think the desperation lies, but I agree there are problems to the plan.  For me, God had saved them out of Egypt, so getting them into the land would be easy.  I think the problem is going to be whether there are any People left alive (unpunished) to receive the promise.  Although God does say that the current generation won't survive.

5) Yeah.  Moses is much more of a mediator, so has a lot of message passing to do, gets to talk to God more often than the patriarchs, and seems to have some authority to implement what he thinks God would want.

Leviticus 1 text

Highlights

 - a new book - part 3 of the 5 part trilogy
 - God shows the People how to make up for Adam's rebellion in Genesis 3

Summary

 - God gives Moses instructions on how Burnt Offerings should be made.
 - these were to be from good stock, ie with no blemishes
 - they could be bulls, sheep or birds.

Questions and Observations

1. It seems that the Burnt Offerings were already being made, so rather than specifying a new sacrifice, God was telling the People how to do it properly.
2. The Hebrew word in verse 2 for the "man" bringing an animal to sacrifice is kind of weird. The Hebrew word is "adam" which means "a human," but is also the name of the first man. This takes us back to Genesis 3 where God killed an animal and used its skin to cover the nakedness of the first Adam.
3. The purpose of the burnt offering is to make an "atonement".  The Hebrew word means covering.  It's actually a triple-pun, referring to God's covering the first humans with animal skins, the atonement cover of the Ark of the Covenant, and the roof covering a building, like a tabernacle.
4. In Genesis 3, God cast the first humans far away from his presence. The word "offering" in Leviticus literally means "drawing near" or "approach".  So this sacrifice is all about undoing what happened back in Genesis 3.
5. And I bet you all thought this sacrifice stuff was going to be boring.
6. God doesn't specify how often an offering should be made, it wasn't compulsory.  And you could bring a bull, a sheep or goat, or just a bird.  It was all a pleasing aroma to the Lord.  So God wasn't concerned about the frequency of the offering or the value of what was offered.  ISTM then that it was the motivation of the offerer that was significant.   
7. The offerer had to do most of the work in this procedure.  He had to bring it, kill it, flay (skin) it, cut it and wash it.  The priest had to arrange all the pieces on the alter and burn it.

Burnt offerings became the property of the priesthood and that's probably largely how they supported themselves.

It was in their best interest to interpret God's command in such a way that the burnt offerings (less a tiny amount that went up in smoke) be the highest quality. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 18, 2016, 05:57AMBurnt offerings became the property of the priesthood and that's probably largely how they supported themselves.

It was in their best interest to interpret God's command in such a way that the burnt offerings (less a tiny amount that went up in smoke) be the highest quality. 

Tim, do you ever approach the Scriptures without a cynical attitude?  I've met many non-Christians who seem to approach the Bible with far less cynicism than you do.  Hard for me to figure out from someone who claims to be a Christian of some sort.

The alternative to considering normal human psychology in the assessment of ancient peoples actions is either to believe they were fundamentally different from us, or that God controlled them like robots.  The OT writings would not indicate either is correct. 

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 17, 2016, 02:43PMAnother book done. 
2 down, 64 to go! Or 68 if we cover the Apocrypha en route. But of course, not all books are as long as these first two. 90 chapters out of 1189 = approx. 1/13 of the whole thing done. We're making good progress.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 17, 2016, 02:43PMIt's been interesting for me, going through Exodus like this.  I'm noticing different details to what I have before.  Possibly because of the type of treeatment we're doing and also the atheist influence,   by that I mean seeing the text presented from a non-believers perspective.
It's interesting to me to see the things that you pick out that just don't occur to me to look for. This is very definitely a text that you have more familiarity with than I do, which prompts you to drop in 'look-forward' moments based on your superior prior knowledge of what's to come. But also, as you say, it's a difference in perspective - for example in your recent post on the last set of Exodus chapters, you look at it and see an important theological moment - God literally comes to live in a tent with the Israelites. I look at it and see Moses wielding his formidable soft power skills again - as the Israelites grow more and more difficult to keep in line, he ups the ante with his psychological work on them; now things have grown so fractious that nothing less than God standing literally in their midst to watch them will keep them obedient. Whether or not God is in the tent, the message is potent.

I see no need for God in this - but I do applaud the dextrous footwork of Moses in keeping himself permanently one step ahead of his followers. I wouldn't want him as my boss at work! But keeping a bunch of unruly Bronze Age tribes in line to the extent of welding them into a greater political unit was a task and a half for sure, one that required these skills.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 18, 2016, 12:29AMLeviticus 1 text
 - a new book - part 3 of the 5 part trilogy
Douglas Adams, a much-missed voice. 15 years now, goodness...

How was Tassie? I forgot to ask.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 18, 2016, 12:29AM - God shows the People how to make up for Adam's rebellion in Genesis 3
Thanks for explicating the logic of this. Yes, I would have just skipped over it if making the summary myself. In fact I'd deliberately not jumped into Leviticus before you came back because it seemed to me that the most suitable first post would have covered all these chapters about offerings law rather perfunctorily...

As per, I note that this gives us the Biblical explanation for why burnt offerings were being made. This doesn't necessarily reflect how it actually arose. Humans have been sacrificing things for religious purposes (animals here, but also inanimate objects and even other humans) for a very long time indeed, and the practice is well-documented away from the influence of the Abrahamic religions.

But having noted that, I think I will proceed by including all the next few offerings laws chapters together here. Apologies if you have more big points to make that depend on the detail - do pull me back if so.

Leviticus 2 text
Leviticus 3 text
Leviticus 4 text
Leviticus 5 text
Leviticus 6 text
Leviticus 7 text

Highlights

 - Grain Offering laws
 - Peace Offering laws
 - Sin Offering laws
 - Guilt Offering laws
 - Priest roles with offerings

Summary

 - Only fine flour acceptable, treated with oil and frankincense.
 - Only unleavened bread as a baked offering.
 - A Peace Offering is a sacrifice of a herd animal.
 - A Sin Offering is usually a sacrifice of a bull. But there are also allowances for he-goats, she-goats, and lambs.
 - The lamb is specified for particular sins - omission of legal testimony, touching something or someone unclean, making a promise that cannot be kept.
 - But those that cannot afford this may instead sacrifice pigeons, or if they cannot afford pigeons, grain.
 - Lev 5:13 and supporting verses tell us that the priests got to keep most of the offering.
 - A distinction is made for "Guilt Offerings" of a ram - where the sinner did not realise their sin at the time.
 - Lev 6:8-29 and Lev 7 explicitly tell us what the priests were to do with sacrifices. Those who got to eat what are specified hierarchically.

Questions and Observations

1) It's clear from these regulations that scale of atonement was directly linked to financial forgoing.
2) Black pudding is banned!
3) Must the Peace Offering be a cow or a bull? The next chapter seems to suggest so.
4) If many people sin at once, only one bull need be sacrificed. This to my mind incentivises people who have sinned to persuade others to join them in their sin before everyone confesses and gets their spiritual balance book totted up.
5) Did we define "unclean" already? Or is that out of order?
6) It must have been a good living, being a priest - commanding others to sacrifice animals, then living off the spare sacrifice meat.
7) There must have been plenty of controversies as to whether the amendment for a particular sin could be downgraded from a "Sin Offering" to a "Guilt Offering". As Tim points out, a priest that was not 100% on the level could have corruptly enriched themselves considerably under this system.
8) Aaron and his sons are held at the top of the priestly hierarchy. Was familial succession accepted in this at this time? Or was it a new imposition?

The point here is that the society had become sufficiently advanced, sufficiently complex, sufficiently affluent, and sufficiently law abiding to require a large bureaucratic body of regulations. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 18, 2016, 05:57AMBurnt offerings became the property of the priesthood and that's probably largely how they supported themselves.

It was in their best interest to interpret God's command in such a way that the burnt offerings (less a tiny amount that went up in smoke) be the highest quality. 

- you're right, it didn't take long for the priests to start taking advantage of their position of power. 

- And I think that the fact that the priests did get to keep a portion of the sacrifices was meant to support them as they didn't get an allocation of land to grow their own food on.  But unfortunately, human nature reared its ugly head, and it wasn't long before some of those priests with power became corrupted and greedy.

- It seems significant to me that the commandments we have here don't support the corrupt practices.  That suggests to me that they weren't written later by those people that were corrupt.  What do you think?

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 19, 2016, 04:59AMThe point here is that the society had become sufficiently advanced, sufficiently complex, sufficiently affluent, and sufficiently law abiding to require a large bureaucratic body of regulations. 

How do you get this as "the point"?

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 19, 2016, 04:11AMBut having noted that, I think I will proceed by including all the next few offerings laws chapters together here. Apologies if you have more big points to make that depend on the detail - do pull me back if so.

I do and I will   Apology accepted.  No sacrifices are necessary.

Sorry for the long post but I was curious and wanted to get an idea of what was involved in each type of sacrifice and what they were for, so here is what I came up with.

Overview
- there are lots of rules.  I've tried to simplify them but I've probably missed some or got some wrong.
- offerings to atone for sin required blood sacrifices.
- It seems to have been important to cover every different type of sin: sin in general, unintentional sin, deliberate sin, sin against God, sin against your neighbour ...  It seemed to be important to deal with it.

There are 6 types of offerings specified.

Each offering had a role for the offerer and one for the priest.  They are described first from the perspective of the

offerer and then again with details more relevant to the priest carrying out their role.  So to get a complete picture of

each sacrifice you need to merge the 2 descriptions.  Which I've tried to do in an easily understandable tabular format

that shows the differences and similarities.

First Regulations:      Subsequent Regulations:

(More “laity” directed)      (More Priestly in orientation)

Burnt Offering, ch. 1      Law of Burnt Offering, 6:8-13

Grain Offering, ch. 2      Law of Grain Offering, 6:14-18
            (vv. 19-23, the priests grain offering), 7:9-10

Peace Offering, ch. 3      Law of Peace Offering, 7:11-34
            also  Leviticus 19:5-8

Sin Offering, ch. 4      Law of Sin Offering, 6:24-30

Guilt Offering, ch. 5, 6:1-7   Law of Guilt Offering, 7:1-10

Ordination Offering, 6:19-23   Ordination Offerings, 8:1–9:24
            Priests and offerings, 10:1-2036

Burnt Offering - for atonement
Purpose : to make atonement for sin and to dedicate priests
When : twice daily for everyone, and whenever an offerer wanted for himself
What : either a bull, sheep or goat, or bird
       a male without defect
How : lay hands on it the kill, clean, cut, sprinkle blood, burn and ashes taken outside the camp
God got : all except skin
Priests got : the skin
Comments :
- any value of offering was as effective as another, so no benefit to bring more expensive offering but I think you were

expected to bring what you could afford.
- if lots of people wanted to make a burnt offering on the one day, the tabernacle courtyard would have been noisy,

chaotic and grisly.
- ch 6 specifies that a special burnt offering must be made first and last thing every day with special procedures.

Grain Offering
Purpose : not definite about this but to do with a gift and it is a memorial or reminder
When : at the offerers discretion but often with a sin offering of some sort
What : fine grain that has been prepared in a some way, with oil and frankincense. No honey or leaven
How : milled flour + oil and salt, baked or fried with oil and salt, or first fruits are roasted with oil  and salt and

frankinsence.
God got : a handful - the memorial
Priests got : the priest making the offering eat most of it
Comments:
- the part of the offering that the priests got was called holy - this doesn't mean that it had special powers that could

dispel evil monsters - it just means that it was set apart to be different ie dedicated.
- all offerings were of equal value to God.
- this is often done in conjunction with another offering

Fellowship/Peace Offering
Purpose : for thanksgiving, for completing a vow, and for a freewill offering
When : at the offerers discretion or required on various occasions
What : animal from herd or flock. Without blemish. And some grain
How : lay hands on it and then kill it
God got : the kidneys, the lobe on the liver, and certain kinds of fat.
Priests got : the breast and the right thigh
Offerer got : if it was a free will offering the offerer and his family could eat the meat for 2 days, then the rest must

be burnt.
Comment : Lev 13:3-4 says that the any meat that a Jew wanted to eat had should first be offered as a Peace Offering.

Sin  Offering  - atonement for unintentional sin
Purpose : if anyone sins unintentionally against the Lord's Holy things
When : when someone sins unintentionally
What : an animal plus restitution of 120%.  The animal should be a lamb or goat, or two turtledoves or two pigeons if he can't afford that, or  a tenth of an ephah[c] of fine flour if he can't afford that.
How : lay hands on it the kill, clean, cut, sprinkle blood, burn
God got : the kidneys, the lobe on the liver, and certain kinds of fat.
Priests got : the rest

Guilt/Trespass Offering - similar to sin offering but included recompense to the person hurt by the sin
Purpose : to atone for a known specific sin
When : when anyone commits a breach of faith and sins unintentionally in any of the holy things of the Lord, or if he commits a breach of faith against the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor 3 or has found something lost and lied about it
What : a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent
How : lay hands on it the kill, clean, cut, sprinkle blood, burn
God got : the kidneys, the lobe on the liver, and certain kinds of fat.
Priests got : the rest

And Tassie, was great.  We only had time to look at Launceston and the east coast.

Lot's of country towns, winding roads through the bush, interesting coastal features, like blow holes, sea caves.

We went on a 3 hour cruise around Freycinet Penninsula which is normally great.  But on this day we had 30kt winds and a 3m swell. I was seasick for most of the cruise and wasn't interested in the cliffs, dolphins, sea birds or anything else. 

Then we went to Port Arthur which was a convict prison used in the mid 1800's and is now a tourist/historical site.  Basically, getting sent to Australia to be used as free labor, was the normal punishment for naughty Pommes back in the day.  If they then misbehaved in Australia they were sent to Port Arthur or other places of secondary punishment. 

Then we spend the last day in Hobart at the Salamanca markets.  (My wife said that they were compulsory)

I always felt like the grain offering as you described it was part of Cain's problem as opposed to Able's offering, even though it wasn't spelled out then as such. Maybe not.

Quote from: ddickerson on Jan 21, 2016, 08:51AMI always felt like the grain offering as you described it was part of Cain's problem as opposed to Able's offering, even though it wasn't spelled out then as such. Maybe not.

Oh, the farmer and the cowman can't be friends!

Well, not quite.  But there is a contrast between the farmer and the herder throughout the OT.  See this book:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/160350794/the-philosophy-of-hebrew-scripture

Here's a quote from an Amazon review:
Quote•People say the story of Cain and Abel is about hatred between brothers. But Cain and Abel aren’t just any brothers. They stand for conflicting ways of life—the life of the farmer vs. that of the shepherd. Abel is just the first in a line of biblical heroes (including Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David, and more) whom choose the life of the shepherd and what it represents and so win God’s love.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 21, 2016, 09:14AMOh, the farmer and the cowman can't be friends!

Well, not quite.  But there is a contrast between the farmer and the herder throughout the OT.  See this book:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/160350794/the-philosophy-of-hebrew-scripture

Here's a quote from an Amazon review:

Hi Tim

Maybe an interesting idea, but one example doesn't prove the point, especially when it also fits in with the idea of the Peace and Burnt offering specs we read here.  Can you provide some references to support the idea that there are "contrast between the farmer and the herder throughout the OT."  And what point do you think is being made by the contrast?  What does the life of a shepherd  and farmers represent that are theologically significant?  And how do we know that your shepherds chose that way rather than just doing the family business?

And just some things that came to mind when I was trying to think of those contrasts.

Boaz was a farmer.  Noah planted a vineyard. Adam had to tend the garden.

Deuteronomy 11:13-15
And if you will indeed obey my commandments that I command you today, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full.

Martin

Leviticus 8 text
Leviticus 9 text
Leviticus 10 text

Highlights

 - Moses consecrates Aaron and his sons as Priests
 - God accepts Aarons offering
 - God rejects Nadab and Abihu's offering

Summary

 - Moses says that God told him to do it
 - Moses consecrates Aaron and his sons by getting them dressed in the right gear, annointing them with oil and making lots of offerings to make sure they is properly atoned for.
 - Aaron and his sons have to stay inside the Meeting Tent for 7 days to make sure they are atoned for properly so that they don't die.
 - Then Aaron offers a sin offering for himself, sin offerings for the people, burnt offerings and peace offerings
 - When they had done this The Glory of God appeared to them (they were safe cause the were holy now) and consumed the offerings on the altars.
 - But ... there's always someone that wants to do it their own way.   Nadab and Abihu and offer incense to God using unauthorised fire.  God was incensed and consumed them with fire, and they died.
 - The bodies are disposed.
 - Aaron is told not to drink wine or strong drink when they go inside the tent of meeting lest they die.
 - Moses and Aaron have an arguement over the right process and Aaron wins - probably indicating his new primacy in deciding temple rituals.

Questions and Observations

1. These Rituals are many and complicated, and dangerous.  I'm glad they're obsolete.
2. Nadab and Abihu were a bit thick weren't they?  I did it my way.

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 21, 2016, 01:10PMHi Tim

Maybe an interesting idea, but one example doesn't prove the point, especially when it also fits in with the idea of the Peace and Burnt offering specs we read here. 

Martin

It isn't my idea.  Others have suggested there is a divide between how shepherds and farmers are portrayed in the OT, with farmers being generally more obedient and less rebellious to Yahweh, but with most of the patriarchs coming from the herder class anyway.  I don't really know the OT well enough to know how consistent this treatment is. 

Quote from: drizabone on Jan 21, 2016, 11:13PMLeviticus 8 text
Leviticus 9 text
Leviticus 10 text

It seems clear that there was some simmering rivalry going on between Moses and Aaron. After all, Aaron was the one who mounted a coup in Moses's absence, with his Golden Calf; a coup brutally repressed by Moses on his return. Aaron's two eldest sons now contravene Moses's instructions and end up dead?

There was a lot more going on here than the text tells us.

Leviticus 11 text
Leviticus 12 text
Leviticus 13 text
Leviticus 14 text
Leviticus 15 text

Highlights

 - Laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness

Summary

 - Clean and unclean animals
   - Clean and good to eat: Cloven-footed animals that chew the cud, water-dwellers with fins or scales, quadruped winged insects with jointed legs
   - Unclean and bad to eat: Violations of the above (even those that nearly fit), various specific birds, various swarming animals
 - Touching unclean things -> you are unclean till evening
 - Uncleanness after childbirth - the woman is unclean for 7 days. Then she is to continue "in the blood of her purifying" for 33 days if a male baby, 14 if a female baby. She must sacrifice afterwards a Sin Offering.
 - Priests are to diagnose leprosy; quarantine techniques to be used to be certain.
 - Cured lepers the priests will make Sin Offerings for.
 - Garments and houses in which leprosy exists can have cures attempted via sacrifice by priests.
 - A person with "a discharge" is unclean, and everything they touch too.
 - A man emitting semen is unclean all day; a menstruating woman for 7 days. Garments and bedding that they emit onto also, and even another person that touches items menstruated onto.

Questions and Observations

1a) Why would it be important to eat only cloven-footed animals?
1b) Why would it be important to eat only ruminants?
1c) Why would it be important to eat only finny and scaly aquatic animals?
1d) Why are the listed birds bad to eat?
1e) Why the similar insect prohibitions?
2) What societal purpose does this fussy and rigid implementation of the concept of "uncleanness" serve? Surely making people jump through hoops in their daily lives for little obvious purpose would bore and alienate them? I suspect that there are a number of empirical learned precepts about what is harmful to eat behind this - and that, as is the nature of such collections of knowledge, there were a lot of unnecessary or plain wrong prohibitions mixed in with the sensible, that had been learned incorrectly in haste.
3) Lev 11:27 : "All that walk on their paws [...] are unclean to you" - so no dogs or cats. These people are seriously missing out on some of life's more harmless little pleasures here. I can think of plenty of Jewish friends with cats - evidently this is a law not now maintained. But I also think of the issues that Islam has with dogs - does that arise from the same set of laws?
4) Making a distinction in the (admittedly already extremely artificial) concept of uncleanness between childbirth after male and female babies serves to make a big deal out of gender differences right from the start of life.
5) What does "in the blood of her purifying" mean in Lev 12? There seems a contradiction between Lev 12:4 and Lev 12:5 - 33 vs 66 days?
6) Childbirth incurs a Sin Offering. So childbirth is a sin? That seems... twisted. But consistent with many of the repressive attitudes towards women that one encounters in this kind of context.
7a) The practical quarantine measures regarding leprosy diagnosis are sensible, checking that the disease is definite before.
7b) The detail of how to diagnose leprosy is convoluted, counterintuitive, and beyond my knowledge. Would this procedure have worked?
7c) In fact, a wide variety of symptoms are here described as "leprous disease". I suspect that various diverse diseases are being classified together here?
7d) The segment on "leprous disease" in a garment I find puzzling. It seems to describe a malady of the cloth rather than a human disease being transmitted via garment contact. Have I read this right?
7e) Ditto the segment on the same in houses.
8) Sin Offerings for being cured of leprosy. The sense seems to be that such things are to be considered a divine judgement for having done some unspecified past sin. Very primitive.
9) "A discharge" deals with things such as diarrhoea and weeping sores, I guess. Very sensible medically to keep such things clean and to wash things that come into contact. Minimises infection; I approve.
10a) But the rules on uncleanness after semen emission are over-fussy, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise.
10b) And the rules on uncleanness after menstruation are ridiculously so, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise much more. I think that in verses like this we see arising a lot of the 'ickiness' with basic human biology that the Christian church has tried to imbue our Western society with. And worse - it institutionalises the second-tier status of women in minor but societally profound ways.
11) Essentially, these chapters all boil down to: Some things can be dangerous; we don't understand exactly why or how, but these are the rules we've evolved in order to minimise danger; "uncleanness" is the abstraction we've come to use to represent this danger. Some of these prohibitions I suspect were very old indeed even in Moses's day. Some are bang on the nail; others are unnecessary foliage that's got pulled along as they've travelled the route.

These passages are all about dividing things up into categories (sounds like the first chapters of Genesis): Holy, Common, Clean and Unclean so I think its important to understand what is meant.

So what I think the categories are:

Holy - God or those (people or things) that are set apart (aka dedicated or sanctified) for God
Common - this is everything else: ordinary, everyday, the normal state of affairs for things in the world
Clean - this is normal, what you are usually.   
Unclean - this is the state when you touch the wrong thing or do the wrong thing.

Common things can be Clean or Unclean
Holy implies Clean and Unclean implies Common.
Being Common and Clean is normal.
Being Holy or Unclean are abnormal (at opposite ends of the scale)
God is always Holy
Dead things are always unclean.
People and some things can change classification.
 - Common/Clean to Common/Unclean by sinning, or by touching or eating unclean things or by being "leprous" or having a discharge.
 - Common/Clean to Holy by the appropriate ritual (this is called sancitification in the NT and those sanctified are saints)
 - Common/Unclean to Common/Clean by making a blood sacrifice or in some cases, waiting for a specified period of time.

It was the Priests role to
- carry out the rituals to restore people to common/clean
- teach the People about God and the rules for staying normal clean and how to get back there when they became unclean

15:31 “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.”

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 22, 2016, 08:45AMLeviticus 11 text
Leviticus 12 text
Leviticus 13 text
Leviticus 14 text
Leviticus 15 text

Highlights

 - Laws about cleanliness and uncleanliness

Summary

 - Clean and unclean animals
 - Clean and good to eat: Cloven-footed animals that chew the cud, water-dwellers with fins or scales, quadruped winged insects with jointed legs
 - Unclean and bad to eat: Violations of the above (even those that nearly fit), various specific birds, various swarming animals
 - Touching unclean things -> you are unclean till evening
 - Uncleanness after childbirth - the woman is unclean for 7 days. Then she is to continue "in the blood of her purifying" for 33 days if a male baby, 14 if a female baby. She must sacrifice afterwards a Sin Offering.

 - I think that things were considered unclean because they were somehow not normal.  So Cloven-footed animals that chew the cud were considered the normal type of animals the rest weren't.  Fish were normal if they had fins and scales. ...  Giving birth, having bodily discharges, having leprosy wasn't normal.  So touching or being in these states made you not normal, ie unclean.

So I don't see it as a moral classification although it has obviously been used to out of context to discriminate.

Quote - Priests are to diagnose leprosy; quarantine techniques to be used to be certain.
 - Cured lepers the priests will make Sin Offerings for.

 - I don't think that leprosy had the same definition that we use now.

Quote
Questions and Observations

1a) Why would it be important to eat only cloven-footed animals?
1b) Why would it be important to eat only ruminants?
1c) Why would it be important to eat only finny and scaly aquatic animals?
1d) Why are the listed birds bad to eat?
1e) Why the similar insect prohibitions?
2) What societal purpose does this fussy and rigid implementation of the concept of "uncleanness" serve? Surely making people jump through hoops in their daily lives for little obvious purpose would bore and alienate them? I suspect that there are a number of empirical learned precepts about what is harmful to eat behind this - and that, as is the nature of such collections of knowledge, there were a lot of unnecessary or plain wrong prohibitions mixed in with the sensible, that had been learned incorrectly in haste.

There are a few explanations of why these particular classifications have been made.
- health and hygene
- animals assoc with pagan cults
- that they represented what was considered normal for their particular type created in Genesis

I think that the 3rd option is most likely but don't think its that significant.

Quote3) Lev 11:27 : "All that walk on their paws [...] are unclean to you" - so no dogs or cats. These people are seriously missing out on some of life's more harmless little pleasures here. I can think of plenty of Jewish friends with cats - evidently this is a law not now maintained. But I also think of the issues that Islam has with dogs - does that arise from the same set of laws?

 - I think the concept of keeping animals as pets is a fairly recent one.  I think animals back then were used for pulling things or as idols.  Dogs in the bible are considered carrion eaters, so probably went around in packs cleaning up the garbage - ie more small wolves than cuddly poodles.
 - I don't think most Jews are concerned about the Law.  They are more cultural Jews and not interested in the Religion.  I don't even think that non-orthodox Jews care much.  Id be interested to find out though.

Quote5) What does "in the blood of her purifying" mean in Lev 12? There seems a contradiction between Lev 12:4 and Lev 12:5 - 33 vs 66 days?
6) Childbirth incurs a Sin Offering. So childbirth is a sin? That seems... twisted. But consistent with many of the repressive attitudes towards women that one encounters in this kind of context.

 - I think that the "blood of her purifying" referred to bleeding that occurred after childbirth.  Its the bleeding that causes the uncleanness not the childbirth, which is a reward (Psalm 127) or sex either (Song of Songs, which will be interesting when we get there.  I wonder if we'll get more people contributing?)
 - 12:2-4 says what you do if you have a boy, 5 is what you do if you have a girl.  Discriminatory but not contradictory.
 - I can't see where the text says sin offering. v6 says burnt offering which is the one to change your status from unclean to clean.  Remember you could go from being clean to unclean lots of ways apart from sinning.  Oops I stopped reading before v8

Quote
7a) The practical quarantine measures regarding leprosy diagnosis are sensible, checking that the disease is definite before.
7b) The detail of how to diagnose leprosy is convoluted, counterintuitive, and beyond my knowledge. Would this procedure have worked?
7c) In fact, a wide variety of symptoms are here described as "leprous disease". I suspect that various diverse diseases are being classified together here?

 - I agree with your comments and questions.  It may be convoluted and counterintuitive but that often describes curring edge science.

Quote7d) The segment on "leprous disease" in a garment I find puzzling. It seems to describe a malady of the cloth rather than a human disease being transmitted via garment contact. Have I read this right?
7e) Ditto the segment on the same in houses.

 - it sounds like they are describing mold or mildew which may have been included in their definition of leprous disease.

Quote8) Sin Offerings for being cured of leprosy. The sense seems to be that such things are to be considered a divine judgement for having done some unspecified past sin. Very primitive.

 - My first thought was to protest you're "primitive" but even in the development of the gospel that idea is obsolete, so I'll leave it.

Quote9) "A discharge" deals with things such as diarrhoea and weeping sores, I guess. Very sensible medically to keep such things clean and to wash things that come into contact. Minimises infection; I approve.

 - thats a relief

Quote10a) But the rules on uncleanness after semen emission are over-fussy, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise.
10b) And the rules on uncleanness after menstruation are ridiculously so, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise much more. I think that in verses like this we see arising a lot of the 'ickiness' with basic human biology that the Christian church has tried to imbue our Western society with. And worse - it institutionalises the second-tier status of women in minor but societally profound ways.
11) Essentially, these chapters all boil down to: Some things can be dangerous; we don't understand exactly why or how, but these are the rules we've evolved in order to minimise danger; "uncleanness" is the abstraction we've come to use to represent this danger. Some of these prohibitions I suspect were very old indeed even in Moses's day. Some are bang on the nail; others are unnecessary foliage that's got pulled along as they've travelled the route.

To me the rules are there to remind the People that they were different to the other nations, the nation was Holy and these were the things that they did to distinguish themselves as belonging to God.