Questions that I am sure this sub-forum can help with...

[tigersgrowl1093]

Before I begin this post, I would just like to thank everyone for their help in my last two threads. I have read through them and digested them as well as I can right now.

I have a few questions in regards to things in the Bible that trouble me. These issues are really stopping me from moving forward. I will post one of them in this post because it kind of covers most of the other verses I have issue with.

Numbers 31. I am not reading the verses out of context. I understand that in Numbers 25, the Moabite women were seducing Israelite men in an attempt to destroy them. The Moabites had a connection with the Midianites, so God sought revenge. I don't quite understand this. God is all-loving. How can Someone all-loving be vengeful? Also, isn't he interfering with free will? The Israelite men had free will to make their choices. The Moabite women had free will to make their choices. Why would God kill them? Also, why did God allow the killing of the young boys and the Israelite men were given the young women who knew no man to marry?

I've read apologetics on this issue but still can't wrap my head around it. The young men were killed because they were already too far gone in their evil ways. The young women were given to the Israelites to marry because it would be best for the young women. I can't quite understand this.

I get confused when these kinds of stories come up in the Bible. Are these just humans applying human characteristics to God?

I also have trouble with 2 Kings 2:23 - 24 when Elijah was being mocked by children, so he cursed them in God's name and two bears came and killed 42 children. This just stumps me.

I really am trying to understand these verses. I cannot just accept them as they are, and I figure this sub-forum will be the most open in helping me. Part of me just wants to say that Moses believed God told him to kill the Midianites and take the girls when he really didn't, but I'm just confused. My thoughts lately have been: Maybe the Bible is just a book where the people of that time were trying to seek an understanding of God by applying human characteristics when he really wasn't even as involved as they believe. But that would unravel the whole concept of the Christian God, I believe. I don't know.

Thanks in advance.

 

[hedrick]

As far as I can tell, most members of this forum do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Therefore many of us doubt that the account happened as written. Personally I think the archaeological evidence suggests that before about the book of Judges, the OT accounts are not completely accurate. However whether it happened or not, a major tradition believed it was something that God would command, and the final editor thought that was an acceptable account to include.

In my view the OT shows us a number of different approaches to following God. We see a priestly approach, that emphasizes approaching God through temple sacrifices, and requires ritual purity on behalf of the community. Many of the stories see God as supporting the nation, leading them in battle, conquering other tribes, and either enslaving them or killing them. Then we have the prophets, who deemphasized the cult, saying that what God cared about was how people treated each other. Whether they actually said that sacrifices are useless or just that they are useless unless Israel obeyed God is a matter for debate, but certainly their priorities and the priests' priorities were different. The prophets saw Israel's role as one of being a light to the Gentiles. They envisioned a future where all nations would recognize God and come to Jerusalem to worship him. This is not the same role for Israel as conquering the nations in battle and killing or enslaving them.

At times people have spoken of progressive revelation, and that is surely some of what is going on. The approaches that are closer to Jesus tend to be from the prophets, who wrote relatively late in the OT time line. But differences remained. I find the books of Ezra and Nehemiah chilling. This is a more modern incarnation of the earlier view of tribal purity (though note that even in the pentatech one strain of the tradition thought it was important to treat immigrants from other nations well). While they didn't quite go around killing the infidels, divorcing all foreign wives is not something Jesus would sanction (at least not if Paul is right). Think about the consequences for the families involved. These are the spiritual ancestors of Jesus' opponents, the Pharisees.

The description in 2 Kings is based on the common ancient belief that when bad things happened, they were due to the gods. So if kids were attacked by bears, it must have been a punishment from God. Luke 13:4 and John 9:3 seem to me to suggest that Jesus didn't feel that way. Similarly it's clear in the Psalms and Job that bad things happen to good people. That doesn't mean the judgement never happens, of course, as the prophets are clear. But I doubt that 2 Kings story is an example.

In my opinion the Bible correctly reports the full range of traditions of the Jewish people. But in applying it we need to discern that approach God really wants us to take. Even in a conservative reading, the Bible is full of bad examples as well as good ones. In the OT the prophets are sent to provide this guidance. In the NT, we have Jesus, who cited the prophets, and operates in their tradition. I don't believe the acts that bother you are things that God actually wanted.

I would be prepared to accept an argument that in the early stage of their development, Israel couldn't have survived close contact with pagans without being corrupted, so God had to countenance a more warlike approach than is the one we finally see in the prophets and Jesus. Perhaps these passages are the closest they could come to following God. But it certainly is not the way God wants us to act.

The biggest difference between the conservative and liberal interpretation of Scripture isn't actually whether the Bible has factual or scientific errors in it. It is that conservatives are committed to every part of the Bible as showing us directly what God wants (after we take into account issues like literary form and the intent of the author). Liberals are much more inclined to say that the Bible represents a variety of views, and we have to use discernment; and God has provided the basis for this discernment. I leave it to you to decide which approach is most consistent with the Bible as it is.

 

[lismore]

I have a few questions in regards to things in the Bible that trouble me.

Hi tigers

I can state my opinion best in another example.

There is the story of David dancing before the Lord when the Ark was brought to Jerusalem. Michal his wife despised him for it and she had no children until the day of her death.

In my previous church (AOG) they said it was a curse of barrenness brought on because she despised him, blah blah blah.

But when you read the passage, 2 Samuel 6:16, there is no direct link given in the text. By implication it can be tweaked to say that, but it's a big jump.

Maybe Michal had no children because she and David hated the sight of each other. Hate is not conducive to sexual intercourse.

The story about the bears and the children. Of a certain mindset you can imply a link, but it does not say the bears came out as a result of the curse. it just says they came out. Bears can be nasty without curses!

Sometimes the offensive parts of these passages are assumptions harsh preachers can jump to and not actually explicit in the passage itself.

 

[yanno the meek]

Unless God left a note saying it was Him, the attribution of the killings is the opinion of the religious bureaucracy.

 

[trek4fr]

Many progressive Christians see the Bible, not as a divine product, but as a human product, the product of the ancient Israelites and the early church. This doesn't mean the Bible is not inspired because these two ancient cultures were certainly inspired by their experiences with God to write down their beliefs, to the best of their ability and to the best of the amount of light that they had at the time.

This means that the Bible is not literally "God's words", but, rather, the words of humans trying to understand God, their relationship with him, and their relationship with each other. As fallible humans trying to ascertain the Infinite, we are prone to have misunderstandings and misconceptions. People claim to do all kinds of things in the name of God, some of these things being very good and, unfortunately, some of these things being nonsensical or immoral.

Christianity has historically said that we see God and God's character best in the person, life, and teachings of Jesus. If this is true, then other portrayals of God in the Bible should be measured against the Father that Jesus revealed to us. And, imo, if these other images and concepts don't line up with the God of love that Jesus showed us, I don't hold to those concepts as being accurate. They were, if Jesus was right, a more primitive understanding of God.

I take the same approach to concepts of God that I hear about today. If what people tell me about God seems in keeping with the general truth of the Father that Jesus' revealed, I'll consider the concept and how it might help me to grow more. But if it stands diametrically opposed to the notion that God doesn't want any to perish, I don't hold to these other views. As the apostle Paul reminded us, we are human and see through a glass darkly. IMO, some passages in the OT portray God in extremely dark and poor light. I reject these images as distortions of the way that God really is.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I don't think the purpose of the Scriptures is always prescriptive. Lots of nasty things are ascribed to the name of God in the books of history, and this does not surprise me because I look out my window and see billboards spewing hate and televisions spewing lies and promoting wars all in the name of God. Same old story. I don't think the moral of the books of Kings and Judges is that God is really like that, but that the unjust will always use the name of God to justify their evil deeds. Better to listen to what God says directly through his prophets- Spare me your offerings, I do not love them, I desire justice and the love of mercy- than what others say of God, even if their words got preserved in the Scriptures. And Jesus' advice is always helpful too: judge the tree by its fruit. If the result of a word is death and violence and vengeance, it is not from God no matter what it may look like. If the result is love and compassion, than it is from God whatever the package it comes in.

 

[Jase]

Unfortunately, Conservatives have no problem with those troubled verses. To them, the Bible is inerrant, therefore whatever it says God supports, therefore God supported the slaughter of women and children and that's justified.

That doesn't work with me, anymore than the Crusades were supported by God. Of course, one Catholic I discussed this with attacked me and said I'm an atheist because I don't believe those stories were supported by God.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well, I'd rather be an "atheist" who follows the teachings of God than a "Christian" who does despicable things in the name of God. Atheist isn't really an insult; the first Christian martyrs were called atheists by their Roman detractors, after all.

 

[William II]

There are many stories in the Bible that are true, but not factual. Lots of Bible stories are meant to illustrate God's might/glory/omnipotence, or to teach a moral lesson of some sort.

Much of the OT was man trying to define God, a very trying and arduous task. Those stories are meant to make a point. Be it "don't mess with my bald prophet" or whatever.

The biggest struggle faced by many is the difficulty they (fundamentalists) have understanding that something can be true without being a fact...and applying that notion to the Bible.

 

[NeoTheo]

The stories must be seen in their context (cultural and religious views at that time). As someone said, if something evil happened they saw it as God´s intervention (no matter if he did something or not).
The stories can be true, full lies or they might have had an "educational" purpose. Let´s take the bear example in the light of an "educational" story.
Let´s say there were children/teens in a village who mocked a local priest. The priests friend tell a story to the children about a prophet and a bear who may even kill children who dears to mock "one of God´s chosen". The aim is to stop the chidren from mocking.
The story lives on (without knowledge of it´s context).
In a similar way Jesus tells parables, not that any details in them ever have happened, but because he wanted to teach a point.

For things that happen, we do use terms/knowledge that we know. Some ancient philosopher said that if horses had gods, they would look like horses.
So if we humans have a God, we will interpretate "him" to act as we could do. If we get angry because of mocking, so will God. If we want revenge, so will God.

In Jesus again, a whole new view of God is evolving. How many children did he kill, or did his Father kill because someone mocked him?

 

[trek4fr]

In Jesus again, a whole new view of God is evolving. How many children did he kill, or did his Father kill because someone mocked him?

Good point. The gospels reflect Jesus asking God, not to destroy his enemies, but to forgive them, without them even asking God for forgiveness. Quite a different and power take on God, imo.

 

[Jase]

I think you're confusing inerrancy with literalism. It can be inerrant without being literally true.

For example, the Genesis creation story can be inerrant because the idea of God as the ever-toiling creator of the Universe, as the first cause, that it attempts to present in human terms is true, without it being the case that the process literally took seven days and that all life was created ex nihilo in the form we see today.

I'm not confusing them. They often go hand in hand, however. But the Bible is neither inerrant, nor completely literal.