How do you use the Old Testament?

[MorkandMindy]

This question has vexed me for a very long time, and my own approach has changed over the years from the Fundamentalist position of reading and believing all of it to my present cherry picking approach, I'm particularly interested in whether there are other approaches and in reasons for taking them

The poll is anonymous and you can choose more than one option

.

 

[Receiver]

It is a foreshadow, a pattern of the substance which is the new Life in Christ.
When you are living this life the OT really opens up.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

I voted other - you didn't put a vote option for 'I don't believe it! - it would take a book to explain, and I am reading said book - 'Did Moses Exist' by DM Murdock.
To be very brief here - I think they made Jesus into who they wanted him to be - he was not around to defend himself. They created 'Judaism Lite' - then the proto-orthodox got hold of it and suppressed every other opinion possible - so we ended up with the Roman Church for 1500 years, then the Protestants took everything, more or less, and then they went fundy over the years - sad situation.
The internet is a 'font of knowledge' - for those who dabble - and get exposure, to knowledge. Christianity in the West can't stay as it is - it will become extinct unless they take onboard 300 years of study/research/knowledge - it isn't surviving in the west - the churches are emptying, the church of england will be unviable in 20 years - unless they do something radical - and they won't.
If there are 20 years remaining, and I think not - but that's another topic.
Good thing about the UK and our history, is that we are protected from religion - prince Charles, should wish to be the 'defender of liberty and no religion' - not the 'defender of faith' - perhaps he is enamoured with Islam - they say that the royals are so.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Pointing out the errors in the O.T. elicits a response from many Christians that the Bible was written to show man the way to God, not to be a science book; we already have plenty of those, nor to be a history book, or a book on child raising...

What the O.T. does in Joshua and Judges in particular is to tell the Jewish nation that they are powerful and will win against their foes, that is the purpose of the many stories of genocide, I haven't tried to count them, but although not strictly historical, they made the nation of Judah into a confident foe and a serious challenge to the rule by the Roman Empire.

It could be argued that the O.T. was obsolete by the time it was finished because by then the World had moved on from nations as the unit of power to Empires.

That is too broad brush really, as the Assyrian Empire was the threat that helped the peoples of Ammon, Edom, Moab and Isreal to each form their own strong nations.

The Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Persians and incorporated into that empire, which was conquered and added to the Greek Empire, which was conquered by and absorbed into the Roman Empire, each incorporating the previous empire and therefore larger than it, which is contrary to the prophecy in Daniel stating that each would be a lesser empire. In fairness when Daniel was written it may have looked like each empire would be a lesser one as I'm not sure the Medes were as impressive as the Babylonians had previously been.

.

 

[MorkandMindy]

O.T.
The Jewish nation did rebel against Rome and initially succeeded by almost totally annihilating a complete legion at Beth Horon, which was a shock to Rome, but to avoid other nations deciding they could also revolt, the Roman Empire then sent four legions under an experienced general and eliminated the threat, and a lot of people, by 73 or 74 AD.


N.T.
Rather than maintain Earthly power it is more difficult to eliminate an ideology, so the N.T. is a far better approach. And the O.T. 'historical' books were of no value in the N.T. approach to producing 'the Kingdom of Heaven'. Basically stop killing your enemies and start loving and converting them instead.

The incompatibility is spelled out clearly:

Matt 9.17: No one pours new wine into old wine skins. If they did, the wine skins would burst, the wine would spill, and the wine skins would be ruined. Instead, people pour new wine into new wine skins so that both are kept safe.

 

[Lotuspetal_uk]

1 Cor 10:11-12 sums it up nicely:

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

 

[OopsyDaisy]

If it isn't true, then it isn't. Academics enjoy musing about the Hebrew Bible, writing endless stuff about it, knowing that it isn't true - from a religious perspective, to me, it is important that something is actually true - if they are going to stand there and use it to teach religious truths - otherwise we might all sit and listen to a lengthy sermon on the Voyages of Sinbad.
'What might we learn from Sinbad's epic fight with the skeletons? Anyone?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Hi Oopsy


I think in the O.T. the problem of being unable to get rid of the stuff we really don't want is a good example of the Continuum Fallacy.

It is a problem of failing to determine where to draw the line. I would dump Joshua to 2 Chron because of the horrific violence which we do not need to known about, and which fortunately didn't happen like that either, so it is both nasty and untrue, and Esther isn't factually true, perhaps like Job it was a play, and it was kept because it is a story about the holiday of Purim, and Genesis is also just a story.

But if we drop the whole O.T. we lose Isaiah, Job, and a bunch of other good stuff.

I don't think people will be able to agree on exactly what to keep and what to dump so we just end up keeping all of it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Perhaps the main problem is we are too worried about explaining ourselves to the unbelievers.

It is easy to announce that we believe the whole Bible is the word of God.

But then we get caught up with trying to explain why there was a firmament back then and there isn't one now or how the Bible is right to explain that after The Flood there was an East wind and the flood water just dried up.

Other groups seem to avoid this problem; Shakespeare experts don't get ridiculed for claiming all the plays are totally accurate historical events because they don't claim that they are, but still plenty of people go to see the plays performed well.



More crucially there seems to be an inconsistency in the way we use the O.T.. We consider the ten commandments to be a foundation of civilisation, but when asked why we wear clothes made of mixed fibres which is forbidden in the O.T., we just say it is O.T. and no longer applies.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I've heard Islam criticised because of violent texts, but our own O.T. is really O.T.T. on violence so I'd suggest keeping only the parts that are not full of gore which if I recall would mean Ruth, the wisdom books and Isaiah, perhaps a few others.

The so called prophecies I would not keep; Rev 1-4 keep but not the rest. The reason is I just can't see the point. Do the right thing, don't do the wrong thing, and I'm not sure how much good it is to read about the bowls of God's wrath stored up. Applying the prophecy is impossible I would suggest because we have no idea when they are to happen, nor even if they are all metaphorical and will never happen.

The really worrying bit is they may well be self-fulfilling prophecies; that as people decide others are evil and arm themselves to the teeth, that the resulting situation makes the outpouring of violence possible, and it could ironically be claimed that the storing up of huge quantities of violent power is the stored up wrath. Basically God gives a book of violence and if you choose to read and believe it only then will it come true.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

Hi Oopsy


I think in the O.T. the problem of being unable to get rid of the stuff we really don't want is a good example of the Continuum Fallacy.

It is a problem of failing to determine where to draw the line. I would dump Joshua to 2 Chron because of the horrific violence which we do not need to known about, and which fortunately didn't happen like that either, so it is both nasty and untrue, and Esther isn't factually true, perhaps like Job it was a play, and it was kept because it is a story about the holiday of Purim, and Genesis is also just a story.

But if we drop the whole O.T. we lose Isaiah, Job, and a bunch of other good stuff.

I don't think people will be able to agree on exactly what to keep and what to dump so we just end up keeping all of it.

No we don't dump Isaiah and Job - just sift through those books and sort out who wrote what bits and if they were inspired as the original Isaiah, or were additions written by wicked men, who added evil stuff - as I believe.
I would keep most of Job, and cut out the later additions to that book.
My canon of scripture is redacted down to parts of Isaiah, Job, Joel, and 40 of the psalms - in the OT, and I would keep the book on Jonah as well - the fundies can insist that Jonah was in a big fish, yadda yadda ya, but that's beside the point of it.

I think 'we' need to dump everything that is not true and did not happen - the entire collection of 'historical books' - job lot - up to the rubbish skip you go - let the JWs sift through all that rubbish and select what they want from it - and forget about what is important - that Jesus is the incarnation.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think 'we' need to dump everything that is not true and did not happen - the entire collection of 'historical books' - job lot - up to the rubbish skip you go - let the JWs sift through all that rubbish and select what they want from it - and forget about what is important - that Jesus is the incarnation.

Good idea; it will be fun to hear the JWs come around explaining how Noah's Flood worked and where the firmament went

 

[OopsyDaisy]

Good idea; it will be fun to hear the JWs come around explaining how Noah's Flood worked and where the firmament went

I actually believe that there was a global flood, but not 'Noah's flood' - they made Noah up - actually Noah is Dionysus reworked.
I studied the Genesis beginning bit - and concluded that it was ancient-world cosmology - they had a square of land, water below, and up in the sky more water. Someone opened the 'gates of heaven' and water tipped down - that's how we get rain. And the firmament was made of brass - with windows in it.
The very first bit, is true though IMO - the light separated from darkness has deeper meaning - and I don't know what that is.
I've read a lot of young-earth books, and some of what they say is true - the earth was hyperbaric, and there was Pangaea, and everything did grow big - because of hyperbaric atmosphere. But people? - doubtful. Mammals? - doubtful.

The coal deposits are best explained by a global flood, and the coal has no carbon 14 left - so it must be older than 40,000 years - so the earth is older than 40,000 years.
But 4.5 billion years old? Doubtful - as there would be more supernovas, and more material in the solar system.
The establishment states with absolute certainty their age of the earth - I think not. And absolute certainty their Darwinism - I think not.
I'm not a young-earth creationist, but I am a creationist, because I believe in creation, not Darwinism - because of the evidence. I also get hacked off by the continuous drumming of the establishment of their Darwinism - I know that young-earthers are totally fed up with as well.
At the moment I am still doing the research - reading books from both sides of the divide - and my thoughts at the moment - a global flood, about 200,000 years ago - and different fauna, but the same flora - some of the old fauna survived, somehow into modern times - but you don't get modern mammals mixed up with the old order - you just don't - despite the yecs trying to wriggle it in - I've never got a straight answer from that ilk - just stuff like - 'when are you going to accept that our Hebrew Bible is the "Word of God"?

The old myths about the 'sons of God' are derived from the Greeks - the Genesis account is lifted from the Greeks - so any information about 'reptilians' will come from the Greeks. At the moment, I can see evidence that there were reptilian humanoid creatures in ancient times - which bred with humans to create aberrations. There was also a corruption if fauna, IMO.
Any mention of reptilians, and people think of David Icke, and that's the end of it - I don't care about David Icke -my opinions have developed because of the evidence.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Good idea; it will be fun to hear the JWs come around explaining how Noah's Flood worked and where the firmament went

I actually believe that there was a global flood, but not 'Noah's flood' - they made Noah up - actually Noah is Dionysus reworked.

That sermon was too long for me to listen to, but there are annual layers in the Antarctic ice cap going back 900,000 years without any evidence of a flood among them if that is in any way helpful for setting the time frame for it.

I studied the Genesis beginning bit - and concluded that it was ancient-world cosmology - they had a square of land, water below, and up in the sky more water. Someone opened the 'gates of heaven' and water tipped down - that's how we get rain. And the firmament was made of brass - with windows in it.

Bronze, I know the translators thought it was brass but I think it was bronze.

The very first bit, is true though IMO - the light separated from darkness has deeper meaning - and I don't know what that is.
I've read a lot of young-earth books, and some of what they say is true - the earth was hyperbaric, and there was Pangaea, and everything did grow big - because of hyperbaric atmosphere. But people? - doubtful. Mammals? - doubtful.

The coal deposits are best explained by a global flood,

Could you give a very quick mention of how the flood resulted in coal deposits, if you have access to the information?

and the coal has no carbon 14 left - so it must be older than 40,000 years - so the earth is older than 40,000 years.

But 4.5 billion years old? Doubtful - as there would be more supernovas, and more material in the solar system.

If we were closer to the centre of the galaxy then the supernovas would have got us a long time ago and we would not exist.

The establishment states with absolute certainty their age of the earth - I think not.

Between 4.49 and 4.59 billion years, as measured from long-lived isotopes and daughter products, also the particle tracks in the rocks.

And absolute certainty their Darwinism - I think not.

Darwinism is non-negotiable. I can't think of anything in science known with as high a level of certainty.

Even Pat Robertson has abandoned the Young Earth & anti Darwin position, and so has J I Packer though I'm not sure he ever believed it.

I'm not a young-earth creationist, but I am a creationist, because I believe in creation, not Darwinism - because of the evidence. I also get hacked off by the continuous drumming of the establishment of their Darwinism - I know that young-earthers are totally fed up with as well.
At the moment I am still doing the research - reading books from both sides of the divide - and my thoughts at the moment - a global flood, about 200,000 years ago - and different fauna, but the same flora - some of the old fauna survived, somehow into modern times - but you don't get modern mammals mixed up with the old order - you just don't - despite the yecs trying to wriggle it in - I've never got a straight answer from that ilk - just stuff like - 'when are you going to accept that our Hebrew Bible is the "Word of God"?

The old myths about the 'sons of God' are derived from the Greeks - the Genesis account is lifted from the Greeks - so any information about 'reptilians' will come from the Greeks. At the moment, I can see evidence that there were reptilian humanoid creatures in ancient times - which bred with humans to create aberrations. There was also a corruption if fauna, IMO.
Any mention of reptilians, and people think of David Icke, and that's the end of it - I don't care about David Icke -my opinions have developed because of the evidence.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

That sermon was too long for me to listen to, but there are annual layers in the Antarctic ice cap going back 900,000 years without any evidence of a flood among them if that is in any way helpful for setting the time frame for it.

#I know that Ken Ham tried to wriggle out of that one - my estimate for the age of the earth, at a guess, is 200,000 years.

Bronze, I know the translators thought it was brass but I think it was bronze.

# Yeah bronze, whatever.

Could you give a very quick mention of how the flood resulted in coal deposits, if you have access to the information?

# Alternatively - could you outline how coal deposits were formed with the idea of marsh/bogs and that - doesn't happen now, didn't happen in the past - it was a global flood - swept all the trees into a big pile, and then sediment covered over it - quick fossilization - job lot.

If we were closer to the centre of the galaxy then the supernovas would have got us a long time ago and we would not exist.

# I'm not well up on the supernova theories - but what about comets? Or do you go along with the Oort cloud theory?

Between 4.49 and 4.59 billion years, as measured from long-lived isotopes and daughter products, also the particle tracks in the rocks.

# I have a book on that, by yec.. it's rather dull reading, so I havnt picked it up yet - I know that the yecs dispute that 4.6 b. years figure.

Darwinism is non-negotiable. I can't think of anything in science known with as high a level of certainty.

# With respect - you need to read some more books - Darwinism is the biggest cave-in for ex-christians - IMO, they have not investigated the other side of the argument - read these books by non-christians -

Evolution under the microscope, by David Swift
Shattering the myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton.

Pat Roberson doesn't know anything about anything.

#


Even Pat Robertson has abandoned the Young Earth & anti Darwin position, and so has J I Packer though I'm not sure he ever believed it.

My reply is contained within your quote - I have used # to highlight my replies - using tablet computer.

 

[MorkandMindy]

My reply is contained within your quote - I have used # to highlight my replies - using tablet computer.

...

Bronze, I know the translators thought it was brass but I think it was bronze.

# Yeah bronze, whatever.

If it had been brass then after being exposed to water for a few decades it would have disintegrated as the zinc rich part dissolved and left a gritty copper rich paste.

As an immediate result the water it was holding up would inundate the Earth below.

Oh, um, well.

Darwinism is non-negotiable. I can't think of anything in science known with as high a level of certainty.

# With respect - you need to read some more books - Darwinism is the biggest cave-in for ex-christians - IMO, they have not investigated the other side of the argument - read these books by non-christians -

Evolution under the microscope, by David Swift
Shattering the myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton.

'Darwinism is non-negotiable' may seem a problematic statement when Karl Popper's criteria is applied that a statement is not a scientific one if it is not susceptible to disproof.



And it may also seem that the more central the theory the more it looks like a definition or a 'metaphysical research program' and the less like a scientific statement.

The present situation is that evolution is the one big theory in biology and without it biology wouldn't make much sense. All the various species would be just the ad hoc creation by some supernatural being with a mind of it's own.

And so it could be argued that since evolution is the one big theory in biology that therefore everything is based on it and nothing produced by biology can ever disprove it.



But that isn't the case, and incorrectly taking a statement to be true opens it up to reductio ad absurdum disproof so core theories can be the ones most subject to scrutiny.

Charles Darwin provided one way of disproving evolution in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

A number of apparent disproofs have been applied to the theory but none have so far succeeded.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

A number of apparent disproofs have been applied to the theory but none have so far succeeded.

I should have expressed that a bit differently:

Where an organ (or organism) could not have been produced by small enough steps for mutation to achieve then that is often called: 'irreducible complexity' and considered to disprove evolution.

Many times 'irreducible complexity' has been declared and subsequently a series of small steps have been found to achieve the required result.


It could be felt the situation is no longer one with science on the defense as per the Albert Einstein quote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

and I can see why people could feel things have gotten a bit arbitrary because it just comes down to some religious people believing they will find a disproof of evolution, and because the proposed disproof may need a decade or two to solve, the scientist is expecting that not only did nature obviously solve that problem, but that a scientist would work out how it was solved, or there might be more than one way so that gets even more difficult to express; a number of ways in which it might have been solved and obviously one or more were actually taken.

That might seem like faith against faith until it gets quantified and out of all the millions of successful explanations evolution has given, there are just a few over which it is doubted, and in past most of those have been found to fit within the compass of evolution.

There are also versions of evolution in use in other fields such as we can see churches have mainly moved from the 'fire and brimstone' approach and a multitude of less successful churches have closed while the Pentecostal variety appeal to people more now and are growing. Yes, churches also evolve.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If it isn't true, then it isn't. Academics enjoy musing about the Hebrew Bible, writing endless stuff about it, knowing that it isn't true - from a religious perspective, to me, it is important that something is actually true - if they are going to stand there and use it to teach religious truths - otherwise we might all sit and listen to a lengthy sermon on the Voyages of Sinbad.
'What might we learn from Sinbad's epic fight with the skeletons? Anyone?

It took me a while to grasp that one.

Even after something is shown to be untrue I usually still think the idea might have some use or the concept behind it might work somewhere else, I guess that's why I'm staying in touch with Christianity even though there isn't a ghost of a chance it is correct.

What I was thinking is that concepts can only be untrue if they are logically impossible, if they are shown not to apply in a situation they were applied to then they are just not applicable to that situation, not actually untrue.

A theory however is different because it is intended to fit a set of facts and if it doesn't then it is untrue.


So finally after a week or two I have come around to agreeing with you, that the 'endless stuff' is theories and theories may be enjoyable as concepts (to the small group that like such things as theories about the Hebrew Bible), but theories that do not fit the facts are worthless as explanations.

 

[Simonline]

This question has vexed me for a very long time, and my own approach has changed over the years from the Fundamentalist position of reading and believing all of it to my present cherry picking approach, I'm particularly interested in whether there are other approaches and in reasons for taking them

The poll is anonymous and you can choose more than one option

.

Oh dear, your slide into liberalism is not good. The Messiah and the apostles all believed unequivocally that the Tanakh (Old Testament) is the authoritative Word of God (2Tim.3:16-17) and related to it accordingly (Lk.16:19-31). Dare we do any different? Remove the authority of the Tanakh and the New Testament has no legitimate basis (Luke.24:13-35)? The basis of the legitimacy of the Messiah is not that he performed signs and wonders (though these bore witness to His authenticity) but that his life, death and resurrection were the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy as the Creeds declare, not that 'On the third day he rose again' but rather that 'On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures' It is the Old Testament which authenticates the New Testament not vice versa as so many Christians erroneously believe (see Homecoming - Our Return to Biblical Roots by Chuck and Karen Cohen Homecoming: Our Return to Biblical Roots: Chuck Cohen, Karen Cohen: 9781852404673: Amazon.com: Books )

Simonline.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Oh dear, your slide into liberalism is not good. ...

Simonline.

What happens if I do return to Evangelical and what if I don't?

And how Evangelical: Do I need to reject evolution?

Do I need to believe the Earth is less than a million years old?

Do I need to believe the stars, Sun and Moon were attached to the firmament?