Miracles, magic and superstition in the Bible.

[Radrook]

It's an argument about human psychology, so it is not a fool-proof argument. There are fools who do irrational things, like turn them in to police when they are definitely innocent and the police never considered them suspects in the first place.

But still, it looks like a good objection for me. It's one thing to say that a person has a temptation to sin and use drugs that make him feel amazingly great, and another to say that a normal human person who knows 100% that a certain religious teaching is correct and that God exists will teach the opposite with no apparent benefit.

I don't remember the Bible saying that the Israelites believed that Moses got the tablets from God. God was up on the mountain and scared the Israelites with his fire and thunder there, and then Moses went up and got the Torah, so I would think that they did. So it does not make sense that they would make a golden calf and say that the calf led them from Egypt, if in fact the story was real and everyone knew that a golden calf did not lead them from Egypt and that making idols was banned by the God who was at that time impressing them with thunder and fire. There is no benefit to making a golden calf and worshiping it, but there is an extreme downside for doing so in this case, and so a mass of people impressed with God and knowing 100% that he was real would not realistically do this, unless they were psychotic.

Feel free to disagree, because there are psychotic people out there. It's not a perfect argument, just a good one, it looks to me anyway.

Once again you put forth the argument that knowing that God is real 100% makes rebellion against him based on other factors unlikely. I will conceded that such can indeed reduce the possibility of doing the opposite what God tells us. But I cannot agree that it totally removes the possibility of disobedience because of all the counter examples available which clearly prove otherwise and which you choose to totally ignore without offering a reason why they should be dismissed as irrelevant.

BTW

If indeed they were planning to go back to Egypt, then it makes perfect sense to arrive as worshipers of the local deities instead of the God who had proven to be such an enemy of the Egyptians. So it can be seen as a way to assuage Egyptian fears of sedition or of being attacked as worshipers of the Hebrew God as soon as their return had been detected.

 

[JackRT]

Not only that but I am told you can see the border of Israel from the air: within it's borders, it is green. Outside it's borders, it is not. That would be not only a striking miracle, but one that sends a clear message about who the Author of Life is, exactly as the resurrection of Jesus does.

No miracle there. Just very good agricultural practice with the aid of modern technology.

 

[rakovsky]

If indeed they were planning to go back to Egypt, then it makes perfect sense to arrive as worshipers of the local deities instead of the God who had proven to be such an enemy of the Egyptians. So it can be seen as a way to assuage Egyptian fears of sedition or of being attacked as worshipers of the Hebrew God as soon as their return had been detected.

I understand. It's rational to propose an explanation that they could want to go back to Egypt and therefore were using the bull worship as a pretense, even though it's not in the text that this was the reason.

In that case we have the psychological analogy that a child is unlikely to extremely disobey two parents three times their size when the parents are right in front of them watching them. It happens, it's just uncommon. And in this case we aren't just talking about two parents three times their size but about God who is raising fire and thunder in front of them. Your analogy would be like kids building an idol to worship in a Christian home right in front of two parents watching them in order to run away from home to live in slavery.

It's not that it's impossible, but that realistically it is not the kind of thing that they would do. If God is watching them right there, they would be more likely to just go back to Egypt and claim they worshiped a golden calf, rather than actually do it when God is watching. Psychologically it doesn't make sense.

 

[rakovsky]

No miracle there. Just very good agricultural practice with the aid of modern technology.

They diverted the headwaters of the Jordan away from neighboring countries, according to the news articles.

 

[JackRT]

They diverted the headwaters of the Jordan away from neighboring countries, according to the news articles.

Solving one problem so often creates new problems. The point was not that it was a good or a bad thing but that it was not a miracle.

 

[rakovsky]

Before I address that, let me first respond to your claim that those spirit creatures who rebelled against God were irrational demons. That isn't true. The ones who decided to rebel were holy angels who had seen God face to face and who had all their mental faculties intact and not insane irrational demons.

Notice that these spirit creatures had personally witnessed far greater miracles than the Israelites had beheld. They had seen the creation of the Earth and perhaps of the entire universe itself. The book of Job tells us that they celebrated when God finished what is described in Genesis.

Job 38: 7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


So if indeed beholding miracles prevents unfaithfulness then they are an excellent example of just the opposite. They placed their desire above what they knew was right.

We also have Judas Iscariot beholding all the miracles, including the curing of lame and lepers and the resurrection of the dead, performed by Jesus and it didn’t faze him one bit from setting up money as an idol.

John 12:

5"Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?" 6Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.

We have David who believed in God and yet took another man’s wife and murdered her husband. Why? Because he set up lust as an idol.

David Murders Uriah
2 Samuel NIV

11 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”....

14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”


Solomon was a rational human being and yet sinned against God by building places of idolatrous false worship for his concubines because it represented a means to a strongly-desired end.

1 Kings 11:7 ►
N I V
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.

Then you have modern-day atheists who see the miracle of life all around, DNA, Nano molecular machines in our cells, the Fibonacci Sequence and because they want to do what they want ignore it and set up the idols of abiogenesis and evolution. I see absolutely no difference between the twain.


There are other kinds of temptations.

The temptation to be free to do as one pleases.

Such a temptation can lead persons to do what they know is wrong in order to attain it.
The Bible tells us that Adam was NOT deceived but sinned anyway. Obviously he was being tempted by SOMETHING despite his knowledge that he had been created and owed the creator respect and appreciation. In effect, despite all that they had beheld they still opted to place the word of what seemed to be a lower animal above God’s. Had it been a bull it would have made no difference. It just represented a means to an end and they took it.

James 1: 14

But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.…


The same holds true for the Israelites.

BTW
About the Roman guards not describing what they had beheld? That could be explained by the fear they must have felt at being identified as followers of Jesus. The Apostle Peter had experienced that fear and had denied Jesus even though he had witnessed all the miracles. So why expect more from Roman guards who had NOTHING to gain from reporting such an event except ridicule and disciplinary retribution?

Luke 22:54-60(ESV)
Peter Denies Jesus
54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” 58 And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” 59 And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.”

You asked me to look at the above cases and judge their psychology.
However, the skeptical claim by GOM is that the Israelites "would not" act this way in their circumstance, psychologically.
Since he is a skeptic, you would have to address that each of the examples in your message above 1. not only happened, but 2. was exactly analogous psychologically.

For example, in Peter's case, you would have to convince the nonChristian skeptic that Jesus had definitely performed those miracles and Peter clearly knew them. But second you would have to show that Peter also was conscious that Jesus was practically right there with him as God with powers analogous to fire, etc. while Peter performed the betrayal.

So it's better for you to try to point to something that is clearly real life and clearly analogous in order to address GOM's question well.

 

[Radrook]

You asked me to look at the above cases and judge their psychology.
However, the skeptical claim by GOM is that the Israelites "would not" act this way in their circumstance, psychologically.
Since he is a skeptic, you would have to address that each of the examples in your message above 1. not only happened, but 2. was exactly analogous psychologically.

For example, in Peter's case, you would have to convince the nonChristian skeptic that Jesus had definitely performed those miracles and Peter clearly knew them. But second you would have to show that Peter also was conscious that Jesus was practically right there with him as God with powers analogous to fire, etc. while Peter performed the betrayal.

So it's better for you to try to point to something that is clearly real life and clearly analogous in order to address GOM's question well.

I consider your demands irrelevant and irrational. Otherwise i would make an attempt to address them for the sake of discussion.

 

[Radrook]

I understand. It's rational to propose an explanation that they could want to go back to Egypt and therefore were using the bull worship as a pretense, even though it's not in the text that this was the reason.

In that case we have the psychological analogy that a child is unlikely to extremely disobey two parents three times their size when the parents are right in front of them watching them. It happens, it's just uncommon. And in this case we aren't just talking about two parents three times their size but about God who is raising fire and thunder in front of them. Your analogy would be like kids building an idol to worship in a Christian home right in front of two parents watching them in order to run away from home to live in slavery.

It's not that it's impossible, but that realistically it is not the kind of thing that they would do. If God is watching them right there, they would be more likely to just go back to Egypt and claim they worshiped a golden calf, rather than actually do it when God is watching. Psychologically it doesn't make sense.

I find this explanation totally acceptable.

The first verse of chapter 32 alone introduces several aspects of the situation that the people of Israel faced before Mount Sinai. As the text suggests, Moses brought them out of the land of Egypt. This is not to suggest that Israel did not believe God intervened in this exit from Egypt. On the contrary – the problem is not with Moses’ leadership, but with Moses’ absence.

Thus we see that the leadership is still God’s. The issue, however, is that God exercised His leadership through Moses. In the verse preceding the conversation between God and Moses up in the mountain, we are told that “he stayed on the mountain for forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 24:18 NIV), which is the phrase used to express a long period of time (Durham 419). When suddenly the people lost their direct connection with God for a long time, they also lost their peace. Patience was hard to maintain.


This tense situation partially explains the people’s attitude towards Aaron. The modern NIV translation suggests that the people “gathered around” (Exodus 32:1 NIV) Aaron, which is not as clear as the original word in Hebrew. The Hebrew word may be translated better as “come together upon, to, against” (Durham 416). Using this pressure as an advantage, the people of Israel urged Aaron to make them gods, who will lead them, because Moses is no more there to do it. The analysis of the Hebrew text clearly shows that the word translated today as “gods is truly a plural form of “god”. The God of Israel was gone with Moses’ absence. Another leading deity was needed (Durham 419). Thus, Israel violates the first commandment of God.

As it was shown in the analysis of the passage from Exodus 32, there are several main reasons for the false worship of God. The lack of patience is what first strikes us as we read the narrative. The people of Israel have already been with Moses long enough, and have seen enough miracles in their journey, that they did not have a reason to doubt in his return. Yet, they were anxious and sought a way to substitute what they were missing.
http://wideandhigh.com/blog/2007/09...-israel-and-the-true-and-falst-worship-today/

 

[rakovsky]

I consider your demands irrelevant and irrational. Otherwise i would make an attempt to address them for the sake of discussion.

Hi Radrook.
It is nice talking with you. I worry that many Reformed have two basic settings when dealing with criticism:
zealous aggressiveness or withdrawing back into a shell. This is not a criticism of you personally. But it seems that many of them would rather do this than rethink deepseated beliefs.

I pointed out that "You asked me to look at the above cases and judge their psychology. Since he is a skeptic, you would have to address that each of the examples in your message above 1. not only happened, but 2. was exactly analogous psychologically."

I think that this is very relevant to the OP's question because he asked: "My point is that I have trouble believing such stories of the miraculous and magical world of the Israelites" in the OP and then followed it with:

How can we be sure any of the things described in the Bible actually did happen?

Peace.

 

[rakovsky]

In that case we have the psychological analogy that a child is unlikely to extremely disobey two parents three times their size when the parents are right in front of them watching them. It happens, it's just uncommon. And in this case we aren't just talking about two parents three times their size but about God who is raising fire and thunder in front of them. Your analogy would be like kids building an idol to worship in a Christian home right in front of two parents watching them in order to run away from home to live in slavery.

I find this explanation totally acceptable.

OK...
Maybe this is something someone you know would actually do in real life?
The example I just gave of many people making an idol right in front of strict Christian parents ten times their size who are watching them and making fire and thunder in order to run away to slavery under people who won't even know whether they made an idol or not does not seem "totally acceptable" to me, unless the people are irrational.

I am not sure how to show you otherwise... Just because something seems realistic to you doesn't mean that it is...

 

[Radrook]

OK...
Maybe this is something someone you know would actually do in real life?
The example I just gave of many people making an idol right in front of strict Christian parents ten times their size who are watching them and making fire and thunder in order to run away to slavery under people who won't even know whether they made an idol or not does not seem "totally acceptable" to me, unless the people are irrational.

I am not sure how to show you otherwise... Just because something seems realistic to you doesn't mean that it is...

The explanation that I recall having posted as acceptable is this one:

I find this explanation totally acceptable.

The first verse of chapter 32 alone introduces several aspects of the situation that the people of Israel faced before Mount Sinai. As the text suggests, Moses brought them out of the land of Egypt. This is not to suggest that Israel did not believe God intervened in this exit from Egypt. On the contrary – the problem is not with Moses’ leadership, but with Moses’ absence.

Thus we see that the leadership is still God’s. The issue, however, is that God exercised His leadership through Moses. In the verse preceding the conversation between God and Moses up in the mountain, we are told that “he stayed on the mountain for forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 24:18 NIV), which is the phrase used to express a long period of time (Durham 419). When suddenly the people lost their direct connection with God for a long time, they also lost their peace. Patience was hard to maintain.


This tense situation partially explains the people’s attitude towards Aaron. The modern NIV translation suggests that the people “gathered around” (Exodus 32:1 NIV) Aaron, which is not as clear as the original word in Hebrew. The Hebrew word may be translated better as “come together upon, to, against” (Durham 416). Using this pressure as an advantage, the people of Israel urged Aaron to make them gods, who will lead them, because Moses is no more there to do it. The analysis of the Hebrew text clearly shows that the word translated today as “gods is truly a plural form of “god”. The God of Israel was gone with Moses’ absence. Another leading deity was needed (Durham 419). Thus, Israel violates the first commandment of God.

As it was shown in the analysis of the passage from Exodus 32, there are several main reasons for the false worship of God. The lack of patience is what first strikes us as we read the narrative. The people of Israel have already been with Moses long enough, and have seen enough miracles in their journey, that they did not have a reason to doubt in his return. Yet, they were anxious and sought a way to substitute what they were missing.
http://wideandhigh.com/blog/2007/09...-israel-and-the-true-and-falst-worship-today/

 

[ToBeLoved]

You asked me to look at the above cases and judge their psychology.
However, the skeptical claim by GOM is that the Israelites "would not" act this way in their circumstance, psychologically.
Since he is a skeptic, you would have to address that each of the examples in your message above 1. not only happened, but 2. was exactly analogous psychologically.

For example, in Peter's case, you would have to convince the nonChristian skeptic that Jesus had definitely performed those miracles and Peter clearly knew them. But second you would have to show that Peter also was conscious that Jesus was practically right there with him as God with powers analogous to fire, etc. while Peter performed the betrayal.

So it's better for you to try to point to something that is clearly real life and clearly analogous in order to address GOM's question well.

^^ This.

What he said.

 

[Radrook]

Hi Radrook.
It is nice talking with you. I worry that many Reformed have two basic settings when dealing with criticism:
zealous aggressiveness or withdrawing back into a shell. This is not a criticism of you personally. But it seems that many of them would rather do this than rethink deepseated beliefs.

I pointed out that "You asked me to look at the above cases and judge their psychology. Since he is a skeptic, you would have to address that each of the examples in your message above 1. not only happened, but 2. was exactly analogous psychologically."

I think that this is very relevant to the OP's question because he asked: "My point is that I have trouble believing such stories of the miraculous and magical world of the Israelites" in the OP and then followed it with:


Peace.

I enjoy discussing the subject as well. But the demands being made are so many that they require a thread of their own. They also hint at an exercise in futility. As if the person has already considered all possible responses and just wants to go through the motions of rejecting them as he has done before. One tends to recoil when confronted with such a vehement determination to reject anything presented that might contradict a deeply ingrained conclusion.

I can look up and see if my video is in my archives, provide the info as part of my response to one of the mentioned objections. But my previous experience is that those who are hell-bent on rejecting Jesus as a historical figure will simply ignore it all and maintain their original viewpoint.

But the subject of whether Jesus existed or not is indeed rather off-topic. The same demand can be made for every single personage found in the Bible. That requires that we provide reasons why the Bible should be considered a trustworthy historical document. Another subject that deserves its own thread.

Then there is the matter of proving if every single Apostle saw all the miracles. Sometimes not all the apostles were present as in the case of Jesus transfiguration on a mountain when he was observed conversing with long-dead biblical personages.

Sometimes we are merely told that Jesus was with his apostles. However, whether one was missing might have been omitted because it was irrelevant. That is impossible to know.

 

[rakovsky]

The explanation that I recall having posted as acceptable is this one:
"The lack of patience is what first strikes us as we read the narrative. The people of Israel have already been with Moses long enough, and have seen enough miracles in their journey, that they did not have a reason to doubt in his return. Yet, they were anxious and sought a way to substitute what they were missing."

OK, I didn't see that because you posted the quote below what you wrote and didn't put a : sign.
Usually online people make comments about whatever they post above their words.

In that version God goes away but they expect his return and are waiting at the bottom of the mountain where he is.
The idea of making an idol in order to persuade your future slavemaster hundreds of miles away that you returned to paganism even though you expect your own god's return before you get there seems a bit unrealistic.

But then there is the irrational psychotic factor, which is unpredictable.

 

[rakovsky]

I enjoy discussing the subject as well. But the demands being made are so many that they require a thread of their own. They also hint at an exercise in futility. As if the person has already considered all possible responses and just wants to go through the motions of rejecting them as he has done before. One tends to recoil when confronted with such a vehement determination to reject anything presented that might contradict a deeply ingrained conclusion.

I can look up and see if my video is in my archives, provide the info as part of my response to one of the mentioned objections. But my previous experience is that those who are hell-bent on rejecting Jesus as a historical figure will simply ignore it all and maintain their original viewpoint.

But the subject of whether Jesus existed or not is indeed rather off-topic. The same demand can be made for every single personage found in the Bible. That requires that we provide reasons why the Bible should be considered a trustworthy historical document. Another subject that deserves its own thread.

Then there is the matter of proving if every single Apostle saw all the miracles. Sometimes not all the apostles were present as in the case of Jesus transfiguration on a mountain when he was observed conversing with long-dead biblical personages.

Sometimes we are merely told that Jesus was with his apostles. However, whether one was missing might have been omitted because it was irrelevant. That is impossible to know.

All good reasons why its better to point to real life examples outside the Bible if you want to address a psychological objection by a skeptic about the Israelites' psychology on why they would make an idol of a bull if they knew the idol was not God and that God banned them from doing so.

To say they were tempted does not explain the basis of the temptation in this particular case.

It's like asking why someone innocent would turn them in to cops in a far away town if they were never a suspect in the first place, and answering that they were tempted. What's the basis for that temptation? I don't see a rational one, so am forced to conclude that these admissions by the unsuspected innocent happen but it's very rare and psychotic.

 

[ToBeLoved]

OK, I didn't see that because you posted the quote below what you wrote and didn't put a : sign.
Usually online people make comments about whatever they post above their words.

In that version God goes away but they expect his return and are waiting at the bottom of the mountain where he is.
The idea of making an idol in order to persuade your future slavemaster hundreds of miles away that you returned to paganism even though you expect your own god's return before you get there seems a bit unrealistic.

But then there is the irrational psychotic factor, which is unpredictable.

That's not what the Bible says happened.

When Moses went up the mountain to get the 10 Commandments he was gone for like a month. No one could touch the mountain or they would die, because God Himself was dwelling on that mountain.

The Israelite's thought Moses was dead and he was their leader. So, second in command was asked if they should make a gold idol (because the Egyptians worshipped them and the Israelite's thought in desperation they may get help from the Egyptians God's, not to please the slavemaster) and he did what the crowd wanted. They thought they were going to die in the desert.

When Moses came down, then he saw them drunk, fornificating and worshipping the idol.

That's how that went.

 

[rakovsky]

Peter's denial is understandable. He may not have been thinking clearly and just scared of getting killed and captured, and felt cowardly.

With Judas and the guards it's different because they actively went out of their way to betray Jesus and to spread lies against the resurrection that they saw, respectively. My best guess is that there is more to the story than the Bible tells us in these cases, and that it would be very interesting for millions of people to know the details.

Scholars for a very very long time have been discussing potential specific motives for Judas' action. Money is a conceivable motive, but it is not all powerful as a motive, as in the story he throws away the coins later on. That is, you can conceive that Judas was greedy and didn't care that much about Jesus and so betrayed him but repented later. That's rational. I am inclined to think that there was more to the story if Judas did see Jesus perform many extreme miracles, but it's not no motive.

The story of the guards is a bit strange. Apologists sometimes say guards would NEVER go asleep at their post, because they would get killed. And yet we know that in this case the priests interceded for them so that they would claim that they were asleep, which guards would never do. OK, that's rational, but seems a bit odd. Seeing an angel and probably then knowing or seeing that Jesus resurrected, and having the angel scare them so bad that they got practically "slain in the spirit" is also at odds with them turning around and spreading rumors. At that point if you are a Roman guard and you know that Jesus is risen and chosen by god and protected by angels who scare you so bad that you get paralyzed, I think normally you would not do a 360 and spread the lies but rather become a believer. But then, it's a psychological argument. Maybe the pharisees threatened the guards with death for abandoning their post unless they spread rumors.

Out of all these cases, the psychological issue where people choose on their own to say a bull is God when they know this is not true seems like the biggest problem. Bu the calf worshipping story is not a major element in the gospel, so I don't know that literal belief in it is really so essential to Christianity.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Scholars for a very very long time have been discussing potential specific motives for Judas' action. Money is a conceivable motive, but it is not all powerful as a motive, as in the story he throws away the coins later on. That is, you can conceive that Judas was greedy and didn't care that much about Jesus and so betrayed him but repented later. That's rational. I am inclined to think that there was more to the story if Judas did see Jesus perform many extreme miracles, but it's not no motive.

In addition, Judas hung himself using a tree a short while after He betrayed Jesus, so there was a lot of guilt there between throwing away the coins and suicide.

 

[rakovsky]

That's not what the Bible says happened.

When Moses went up the mountain to get the 10 Commandments he was gone for like a month. No one could touch the mountain or they would die, because God Himself was dwelling on that mountain.

The Israelite's thought Moses was dead and he was their leader. So, second in command was asked if they should make a gold idol (because the Egyptians worshipped them and the Israelite's thought in desperation they may get help from the Egyptians God's, not to please the slavemaster) and he did what the crowd wanted. They thought they were going to die in the desert.

When Moses came down, then he saw them drunk, fornificating and worshipping the idol.

That's how that went.

Great explanation except in the first part.

How did they know he was dead without sending someone up to check for their leader?
Because if they went up the mountain then they would get killed by God?
But then it means they know God is there and real and right by them where they are at the foot of that mountain.
So it means that they know that "the God who delivered them from Egypt and was in the desert with them" (my paraphrase of the calf worshipper's claims about the idol) was not the bull idol.
And why would they say that God was the bull idol if they knew it wasn't true?

The issue was not just that God left and they needed a new God (that would make some sense if they were polytheists), but rather they thought God was still there and in power and real AND that they knew it was not the bull who delivered them like they said about the bull.

 

[rakovsky]

In addition, Judas hung himself using a tree a short while after He betrayed Jesus, so there was a lot of guilt there between throwing away the coins and suicide.

Then there is also the issue that elsewhere in the NT it says that Judas fell face/head down in the field to dying. So skeptics say that there is a major contradiction in the story, while apologists have tried to think up ways to reconcile the death accounts.