what is the purpose of reading the Old Testament?

[MorkandMindy]

When I read Genesis the two visiting Christians (Campus Crusade) said it is correct in it's entirety and that a big expensive scholarly book called 'The Genesis Flood' proves it. The University chaplain said it is an allegory, but I didn't think of asking what it's allegorical meaning is and why it is necessary to lie to produce an allegory.

I read Exodus and it seemed somewhat nasty to kill the First-born just to make a point, and a point entirely wasted on the Egyptians who never bothered even to make a note of it.

I read Leviticus and it was OK but not quite sure why we have all those details, when the explanation of the problems in Gen 1 was that God could have written a science book but shepherds back then wouldn't have wanted it, so it was shortened down to the point of being downright wrong, but then we have volumes of details in Lev, Num, Deut, and couldn't just a bit of that acreage have been used to make a more interesting story in Gen?

And then I read Joshua and Judges and was amazed with all the blood spilled. It seemed pointless and sickening to kill everyone even the youngest children, and the unborn ones too, and the animals, everything that breathed.

If it is all an allegory then what does it mean? Why is some of it (Gen 1) too short to make sense and most of it too long to make sense?

If it is real then what is the point behind it? It seems to go: create World including the parts we now know don't exist, destroy it and every living thing in it except just what is on a floating container, kill the first born in Egypt, walk around the desert until all the Israelis die too, next generation goes into promised land, kills most of the inhabitants, eventually gets destroyed by the Romans, then (continuing beyond the Bible) gentile Christians kill or convert pagans in Roman Empire and kill each other (Athanasians vs Arians) and then it's Dark Ages, then heresy trials then witch burning and finally the works of Aristotle are left behind by the Moors in Spain and the Enlightenment arrives.

We learned a certain amount from the gospels and parts of the Epistles, and nothing from Revelation

Does the Old Testament deserve equal time?

Does it deserve 77% of our Bible and 77% of our time?

 

[drich0150]

In the old testament one of the things that stands out above all else is the nature of God and His sense of righteousness, and subsequently what happens when one fails to meet God's standard. (God's wrath.) I found the OT is a very necessary part of the believers life because taken on it own the OT inspires Fear. And Fear is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of God.

To only focus on the warm and fuzzy parts of God is a mistake. If we are to have a true relationship with God we must examine all that He has left us with. That includes the OT. In order to have a relationship with anyone we must know them. The same is true for God. How can we claim a personal relationship with God if we only look at what appeals to us?

 

[brinny]

Jesus came to FULFILL the OLd Testament. His very lineage is documented in the OLd TEstament...and good grief, we've got David, God's champion, a mere boy who was as bold as a lion for the God he loved with all his heart, and who was indubitably called by God "the apple of His eye"...now who'd wanna miss that?

And Psalms and Proverbs....good googa looga mooga! Wouldn't miss them for the world...

and then you have Isaiah......a spectacular recording of God's heart for the widow, the fatherless, and those who are rejected by society. In Isaiah 54 God Himself declares that HE is the HUSBAND of the rejected wife.

Exquisitely beautiful. I could go on and on, but i don't wanna be hogg-ish

 

[MorkandMindy]

drich0150
I used to take that line but the O.T. does really go too far. I don't think our inherited sin from Adam deserves the genocide in the O.T. Yes, I am aware Campus Crusade thinks it does, but I don't believe them anymore either.

Jesus came to FULFILL the OLd Testament. His very lineage is documented in the OLd TEstament...and good grief, we've got David, God's champion, a mere boy who was as bold as a lion for the God he loved with all his heart, and who was indubitably called by God "the apple of His eye"...now who'd wanna miss that?

And Psalms and Proverbs....good googa looga mooga! Wouldn't miss them for the world...

and then you have Isaiah......a spectacular recording of God's heart for the widow, the fatherless, and those who are rejected by society. In Isaiah 54 God Himself declares that HE is the HUSBAND of the rejected wife.

Exquisitely beautiful. I could go on and on, but i don't wanna be hogg-ish

True, true, my OP would have gotten awfully woolly if I'd also put in the full set of exceptions, but rather than be dishonest (as I suspect Gen 1 of being) I deliberately stopped my early O.T. comparisons at Ruth, which was like an oasis after the blood and gore of Joshua and Judges.

Psalms: Oh, how I love thy Law - yes that did register with me, but I had trouble imagining the apostle Paul saying it, I think it meant more to me than to St Paul.

I did also enjoy the play called 'Job' and Revelation was a fun read but wouldn't believe a word of it, and Romans was a good read too.

The only prophet I liked was Isaiah, but I liked Isaiah a lot, I learned a fair bit of the first 6 chapters by heart.


yes, do go on and be a bit more hogg-ish

 

[brinny]

all of the Old Testament has an inter-woven beauty in that it is all woven together....from the promise of Eve's seed crushing Satan's head, to the fulfillment of her seed, through Jesus the Christ, dying, and essentially crushing Satan's head, and putting asunder the sting of death and sin.

The entire Bible is beautiful, and one day, we will see beyond a glass darkly, and see the entire tapestry that is being woven as we speak, in all it's glorious beauty.

 

[MorkandMindy]

all of the Old Testament has an inter-woven beauty in that it is all woven together....from the promise of Eve's seed crushing Satan's head, to the fulfillment of her seed, through Jesus the Christ, dying, and essentially crushing Satan's head, and putting asunder the sting of death and sin.

The entire Bible is beautiful, and one day, we will see beyond a glass darkly, and see the entire tapestry that is being woven as we speak, in all it's glorious beauty.

How I wish that was true

 

[brinny]

How I wish that was true

as it is written, eye hath not seen nor ear heard what is in store for those who love God...

and this: that ALL things are working for the good of those who love God...

 

[ebia]

When I read Genesis the two visiting Christians (Campus Crusade) said it is correct in it's entirety and that a big expensive scholarly book called 'The Genesis Flood' proves it. The University chaplain said it is an allegory, but I didn't think of asking what it's allegorical meaning is and why it is necessary to lie to produce an allegory.

I read Exodus and it seemed somewhat nasty to kill the First-born just to make a point, and a point entirely wasted on the Egyptians who never bothered even to make a note of it.

I read Leviticus and it was OK but not quite sure why we have all those details, when the explanation of the problems in Gen 1 was that God could have written a science book but shepherds back then wouldn't have wanted it, so it was shortened down to the point of being downright wrong, but then we have volumes of details in Lev, Num, Deut, and couldn't just a bit of that acreage have been used to make a more interesting story in Gen?

And then I read Joshua and Judges and was amazed with all the blood spilled. It seemed pointless and sickening to kill everyone even the youngest children, and the unborn ones too, and the animals, everything that breathed.

If it is all an allegory then what does it mean? Why is some of it (Gen 1) too short to make sense and most of it too long to make sense?

If it is real then what is the point behind it? It seems to go: create World including the parts we now know don't exist, destroy it and every living thing in it except just what is on a floating container, kill the first born in Egypt, walk around the desert until all the Israelis die too, next generation goes into promised land, kills most of the inhabitants, eventually gets destroyed by the Romans, then (continuing beyond the Bible) gentile Christians kill or convert pagans in Roman Empire and kill each other (Athanasians vs Arians) and then it's Dark Ages, then heresy trials then witch burning and finally the works of Aristotle are left behind by the Moors in Spain and the Enlightenment arrives.

We learned a certain amount from the gospels and parts of the Epistles, and nothing from Revelation

Does the Old Testament deserve equal time?

Does it deserve 77% of our Bible and 77% of our time?

You can't properly understand the New Testament without knowing the stories of the Old - its like coming in on the punchline of a joke without the build-up.

Especially you need to understand Genesis 1-11 - the prologue to the biblical story that explains what God's intention for creation is (1-2) what went wrong with that (3-5) and why that can't be fixed up by force (6-9).

And you need ot understand that God's plan to begin fixing up creation began in the call of Abraham and his descendents.

And you need to understand the Exodus motif as that's the overriding the metaphor for God's putting-the-world-to-rights from then on.

And you need to understand the Davidic notion of King as the representative of his people - the single person in whom the whole people are summed up.

 

[drich0150]

drich0150
I used to take that line but the O.T. does really go too far. I don't think our inherited sin from Adam deserves the genocide in the O.T. Yes, I am aware Campus Crusade thinks it does, but I don't believe them anymore either.

Campus who?

If you think God takes things too far, then may I ask who are you to judge God? Are you not taking on the role that you believe God to be insufficient in when you make that judgment?

May I also ask, what you know of the genocide in which you make this judgment? Do you know that the world would be a better place if these people were allowed to live? Can you with foreknowledge make that judgment? We've recently seen what one man and his followers did to the Jewish people. What would an entire nation (Man woman and Child) be capable of?

If you were in the role you figuratively have taken from God with your judgment, would you have stopped Hitler's Germany? (A people being influenced by it's leaders) Then I ask would you stop an entire people who wanted the same thing?

When we do not take the time to understand the God of the OT then we are subject to our own brand of personal righteousness, and stop any real chance of understanding who God is or why He did the things that He did.

So again despite who you think I took my answer from, I say again that the Fear of God and His wrath is the beginning of wisdom. To run from or ignore this "fear" or this aspect of God, is to turn your back of the knowledge/wisdom of who God is.

 

[razeontherock]

rather than be dishonest (as I suspect Gen 1 of being)

You don't understand the underlying principles it's based on. You cvan completely ignore any literal, physical meaning and it still says a MASSIVE amount. Basically, it blew the thinking of the day clear out of the water.

I deliberately stopped my early O.T. comparisons at Ruth, which was like an oasis after the blood and gore of Joshua and Judges.

Again, you can totally ignore any possibility of history, and still get 'the moral of the story;' but it's perfectly obvious you haven't.

Psalms: Oh, how I love thy Law - yes that did register with me, but I had trouble imagining the apostle Paul saying it, I think it meant more to me than to St Paul.

You think incorrectly here too.

I did also enjoy the play called 'Job' and Revelation was a fun read but wouldn't believe a word of it, and Romans was a good read too.

Again, Job completely blew the thinking of it's day out of the water, which it appears you have missed. Do you understand how G-d is justified to pursue saving mankind via this story?

Revelation (at least you're using the right word, since it's all ONE revelation and therefore singular) doesn't mean what you think it says. It's a vision. Have you looked at how every Scriptural vision was interpreted? They have something in common, and it's reasonable to expect that pertains to this book too.

It should be perfectly obvious that you really don't know the purpose of the OT. It's main purpose is to reveal CHRIST, after you know Him, so you can see greater detail than the NT gives. Also to keep us humble, and in an appropriate reverential fear, as drich states.

 

[MorkandMindy]

as it is written, eye hath not seen nor ear heard what is in store for those who love God...

and this: that ALL things are working for the good of those who love God...

How I wish you were God, everything would work out OK.

Problem is the one we seem to be stuck with, even according to his own testimony, has killed 2.3 million people in the O.T. not including the Flood or the First-born in Egypt whereas Satan chalked up a mere ten, all in Job and all with God's agreement.

And what of the afterlife? Satan didn't make the place of eternal torment, God did.

It is easy to just skim over the 2.3 million killings but drowning is not a nice way to die. And what counts as evil? Evidently the highest evil was eating the forbidden fruit since that was passed on to all subsequent generations.

On entry to the promised land killing everything that breathed in many towns was genocide.

Was the reason given by God for doing it convincing? Did all that killing work? Evidently not as the nation of Israel got done in by Rome anyway, with God's permission.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You can't properly understand the New Testament without knowing the stories of the Old - its like coming in on the punchline of a joke without the build-up.

You say 'story'. It would be nice if the Bible made it clear that most or virtually all of the O.T. is just stories. Boring repetitive very violent stories, but few humans are capable of the cruelty the story has God commanding man to do. What sort of story is that?

Especially you need to understand Genesis 1-11 - the prologue to the biblical story that explains what God's intention for creation is (1-2) what went wrong with that (3-5) and why that can't be fixed up by force (6-9).

Odd sort of story, might seem less like it was intended to be believed if Noah wasn't listed in genealogies as an ancestor, and if Jesus hadn't believed it. Presenting the Noah Flood like Job would have worked because I don't think anyone has mistaken Job for a real event

And you need ot understand that God's plan to begin fixing up creation began in the call of Abraham and his descendents.

And you need to understand the Exodus motif as that's the overriding the metaphor for God's putting-the-world-to-rights from then on.

I guess there is a book explaining what all these metaphors really mean because they totally passed me by in my 10 years as an active Christian.

And you need to understand the Davidic notion of King as the representative of his people - the single person in whom the whole people are summed up.

Sorry, I don't understand that, nor has anyone mentioned it before in my 10 years as an active Christian. I'm still trying to understand Christianity but the more I find out the less sense any of it makes.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Campus who?

Campus Crusade for Christ were ultimately responsible for my conversion, and confusion.

The Four Spiritual Laws:

1. God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

2. Man is sinful and separated from God.
Therefore, he cannot know and experience
God's love and plan for his life.

3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin.
Through Him you can know and experience
God's love and plan for your life.

4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives.

If you think God takes things too far, then may I ask who are you to judge God? Are you not taking on the role that you believe God to be insufficient in when you make that judgment?

I'm really only judging him as a technical writer. It is primarily the responsibility of the writer to ensure what he as written has a good chance of engaging with the mind set of the reader, paying particular attention to his prior knowledge.

There is no theology that actually works. The best I've seen is the 12 dispensations, but even that doesn't entirely work and is very contrived.

So as a technical writer, given that no one has ever managed to make sense of the Bible in it's entirety, he has failed.

Unless of course we've got the canon wrong.

May I also ask, what you know of the genocide in which you make this judgment? Do you know that the world would be a better place if these people were allowed to live? Can you with foreknowledge make that judgment? We've recently seen what one man and his followers did to the Jewish people. What would an entire nation (Man woman and Child) be capable of?

Well, do you mean Jesus and his followers and the subsequent failure of the Jewish uprising? What would have happened if they had succeeded is a very interesting question.

Or do you mean the people who died in the Flood?
Or I guess since I mainly focused on the genocide in Joshua and Judges you are referring to the previous inhabitants. Well, I'm in no way convinced it would have worked out any differently. But feel free to convince me otherwise.

If you were in the role you figuratively have taken from God with your judgment, would you have stopped Hitler's Germany? (A people being influenced by it's leaders) Then I ask would you stop an entire people who wanted the same thing?

I would do more things differently than most people can possibly imagine

When we do not take the time to understand the God of the OT then we are subject to our own brand of personal righteousness, and stop any real chance of understanding who God is or why He did the things that He did.

To use your Hitler reference, how many people have found out even the most basic things about him and his culture, his likes and dislikes and the political pressures on him?

So again despite who you think I took my answer from, I say again that the Fear of God and His wrath is the beginning of wisdom. To run from or ignore this "fear" or this aspect of God, is to turn your back of the knowledge/wisdom of who God is.

Fear of God's wrath is the beginning of all wisdom, thanks, the problem was the Old Testament didn't bring up the fear of God, anymore than hearing about the deaths in Iraq topping a million brought up fear in you I suspect. In the case of the O.T. it was not only thousands of miles away but thousands of years as well.

It also doesn't help that some Christians say to take it seriously and be afraid, very afraid, and others say it is just a metaphor.

 

[ebia]

You say 'story'. It would be nice if the Bible made it clear that most or virtually all of the O.T. is just stories. Boring repetitive very violent stories, but few humans are capable of the cruelty the story has God commanding man to do. What sort of story is that?

By story, I mean it is narrative in form - that's not a statement about the extent to which that narrative is historical or whatever.
Secondly, there is not "just" about stories - they are the primary way we make sense of the world, and the best and most universal teaching tool humanity has ever discovered.

What style of story one finds boring is largely dependent on (a) the extent to which you understand what is going on in the story (understanding the metaphors, symbols, conventions, etc) and (b) cultural.

As to the cruelty, violence, etc - the perspective one draws on that seems to heavily depend inversely on how immersed one is in those stories - the Jewish people have never seen the "cruel God" in their scriptures that atheists and some Christians seem to find there.

Odd sort of story, might seem less like it was intended to be believed if Noah wasn't listed in genealogies as an ancestor, and if Jesus hadn't believed it.

That misunderstands ancient genalogies and Jesus' comments. To the later - people refered to shared significant stories in near identical ways whether they regard those shared stories as fiction, history, myth, whatever. Listen to two Trekies (say) talking about what happens in the latest film and you'd probably have to listen for quite a long time before they anything that directly told you it was fiction they were talking about.

Genalogies make significant links - (and make a theological point about death in the case of the Genesis 5 ones that are meant to be read aloud). They aren't trying to make anachronistic claims about historicity for the benefit of 19th century audiences.

Presenting the Noah Flood like Job would have worked because I don't think anyone has mistaken Job for a real event

You'd be surprised. But Noah and Job aren't the same types of stories. Noah is myth - explaining in narrative form why God can't wipe out evil by force. Job is fiction - an ancient fiction no doubt, but working in a very similar way to a modern novel exploring an issue without trying to give a final answer. But Genesis 1-11 isn't concerned with telling you that it isn't history any more than it is in telling you that it is history. It's trying to tell you about the problem with the world. Bringing "did this really happen" to a text like that is our culture's problem, its not the question its original audience would have wanted to ask of a text like that.

I guess there is a book explaining what all these metaphors really mean because they totally passed me by in my 10 years as an active Christian.

Sadly much of Christianity is very good at mission (recruiting people) and appallingly bad at discipleship (training and educating them once you've recruited them).

Sorry, I don't understand that, nor has anyone mentioned it before in my 10 years as an active Christian. I'm still trying to understand Christianity but the more I find out the less sense any of it makes.

David is the king - the closest the nation ever got to a king who ever fulfilled the job description. And what David is depicted as is the whole nation summed up in one person, so that whatever is true of David is true of Israel as a whole, and vice-versa. Hence he get's called by one of Israel's titles - Son of God. And that's then what any true king annointed by God is supposed to be - Israel in person. So the Messiah (annointed [king]) is just that - Israel in person. So when the Messiah does what Israel was called to do but never could do, he does it as and on behalf of all of Israel. When he dies for the nations sins he does that as their representative King. When he rises again he does that as their respresentative King. And so on. Whatever is true of Jesus is true of Israel because that's what he represents, and whatever is true of Israel is true of all humanity because that's what Israel is called to represent, and so on outwards in layers of representation to all of creation. When Jesus dies for sin, he does so for all creation. When he rises New Creation begins for all creation.

 

[drich0150]

Campus Crusade for Christ were ultimately responsible for my conversion, and confusion.

The Four Spiritual Laws:

1. God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

2. Man is sinful and separated from God.
Therefore, he cannot know and experience
God's love and plan for his life.

3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin.
Through Him you can know and experience
God's love and plan for your life.

4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives.

So can you tie this is to how it relates to what I originally said?

I'm really only judging him as a technical writer. It is primarily the responsibility of the writer to ensure what he as written has a good chance of engaging with the mind set of the reader, paying particular attention to his prior knowledge.

What if the Mind set of the reader is strongly based in a sense of self righteousness? Are you saying the God of the Universe Who in this book is trying to establish His Standard of Righteousness, Bend His will to satisfy yours, so that you may find the bible easier to read?

Would you also critique and change "Orson's" role to better fit Mork's character? Or can you see the benefit of having one represent a standard, and the other trying to achieve and live up to that standard?

There is no theology that actually works. The best I've seen is the 12 dispensations, but even that doesn't entirely work and is very contrived.

Then perhaps you should stop trying to worship the Bible and seek the God the bible represents.

So as a technical writer, given that no one has ever managed to make sense of the Bible in it's entirety, he has failed.

For some without a doubt. But I believe as I said earlier it has more to do with the person's heart who approaches the bible than the writing skills of those who God used to pen the scriptures.

Well, do you mean Jesus and his followers and the subsequent failure of the Jewish uprising? What would have happened if they had succeeded is a very interesting question.

Indeed, one can only speculate, but if you look at how the events actually play out God Keeps His promise to Abraham, and the children of Abraham are as numerous as the grains of sand on a beach. If we look at all that He did to preserve His people Including the genocides portrayed by scriptures one can assume that a complete destruction of these people were necessary.

Or do you mean the people who died in the Flood?

No.

Or I guess since I mainly focused on the genocide in Joshua and Judges you are referring to the previous inhabitants. Well, I'm in no way convinced it would have worked out any differently. But feel free to convince me otherwise.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. My role is to simply show you (Despite what you may think of them) that their are other possibilities to your perceived truths.

I would do more things differently than most people can possibly imagine

OK, but the question was what would you do with Hitler's Germany?

To use your Hitler reference, how many people have found out even the most basic things about him and his culture, his likes and dislikes and the political pressures on him?

I know much about the man from just from the History Channel.. I could easily go on at length, but isn't about Adolph the man.

Fear of God's wrath is the beginning of all wisdom, thanks, the problem was the Old Testament didn't bring up the fear of God, anymore than hearing about the deaths in Iraq topping a million brought up fear in you I suspect. In the case of the O.T. it was not only thousands of miles away but thousands of years as well.

Sarcasm and self righteousness aside The "Fear of God" is a term used to describe the most basic sense of authority, and respect one can have for another. Kinda like the fear of thunder and lighting one may experience as a child. as we grow the primal fear gives way to respect and observance to that power force.

As In the case of lighting the actual events may be a long way off, but as soon as you realize that the "thunder clouds" that cause the lighting so many miles away are still over head do you not still respect the possible presents of that force? Or are you one to go swimming in a thunder storm? The events of God's wrath may be along way off, but we are still in the presents of the very same God. I would suggest if you want to experience this side of God all you have to do is ask Him till you get what it is you seek.

Some little boy's just won't stop till they put that fork in a electrical outlet. If you are one of those children then God will accommodate your needs. You may not get hit by lighting but you will get the jolt your looking for.

It also doesn't help that some Christians say to take it seriously and be afraid, very afraid, and others say it is just a metaphor.

Are you one to live your life as other would say or do?

 

[razeontherock]

So as a technical writer, given that no one has ever managed to make sense of the Bible in it's entirety, he has failed.

Nonsense! I've made sense out of the Bible in it's entirety, decades ago. It's not even that hard. I do maintain that anyone still seeing contradictions in it has more sorting out to do.

Perhaps your problem is failing to recognize the Bible isn't a technical manual? If you had to frame the Bible in a context, what would that be; what's it's purpose?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Originally Posted by MorkandMindy

rather than be dishonest (as I suspect Gen 1 of being)

You don't understand the underlying principles it's based on. You can completely ignore any literal, physical meaning and it still says a MASSIVE amount. Basically, it blew the thinking of the day clear out of the water.

You think it was outstanding compared with the other works of the time?


Originally Posted by MorkandMindy

I deliberately stopped my early O.T. comparisons at Ruth, which was like an oasis after the blood and gore of Joshua and Judges.
​

Again, you can totally ignore any possibility of history, and still get 'the moral of the story;' but it's perfectly obvious you haven't.

Sorry, I missed the moral somewhere in all the hemoglobin


Originally Posted by MorkandMindy

I did also enjoy the play called 'Job' and Revelation was a fun read but wouldn't believe a word of it, and Romans was a good read too.
​

Again, Job completely blew the thinking of it's day out of the water, which it appears you have missed. Do you understand how G-d is justified to pursue saving mankind via this story?

No, Job was a good example of the thinking of the d-y

It should be perfectly obvious that you really don't know the purpose of the OT. It's main purpose is to reveal CHRIST, after you know Him, so you can see greater detail than the NT gives. Also to keep us humble, and in an appropriate reverential fear, as drich states.

A God for whom the Old Testament provision for those in the Promised Land was genocide, and the New Testament provision for most people all over the World will be eternal torment, can keep everyone in any kind of fear he chooses.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Originally Posted by MorkandMindy I did also enjoy the play called 'Job' and Revelation was a fun read but wouldn't believe a word of it, and Romans was a good read too.

Originally Posted by razeontherock

Again, Job completely blew the thinking of it's day out of the water, which it appears you have missed. Do you understand how G-d is justified to pursue saving mankind via this story?
​

No, Job was a good example of the thinking of the d-y

Back then, in the centuries around 500 BC, stories about the Gods were common and in them the Gods debated with each other and demonstrated things using humans as mere pawns in their leisurely discussions. I guess Homer comes to mind here, but I know virtually no ancient literature.

As the play shows the Gods are having a conversation about Job and he has no idea why the events are taking place, but the audience knows the reason.

The play is filled out by some good debate going on between the four main characters, but despite their interesting discourse and amusing insults, the over all picture is they are just guessing and the reality is very different from what their guesswork.

 

[MorkandMindy]

By story, I mean it is narrative in form - that's not a statement about the extent to which that narrative is historical or whatever.
Secondly, there is not "just" about stories - they are the primary way we make sense of the world, and the best and most universal teaching tool humanity has ever discovered.

I can see that. We usually distinguish more clearly; Goldilocks and the three bears is a story, but we also have fiction that could be true, and fiction that can't, such as the Harry Potter books.

One question is why God would chose fiction that isn't clearly fiction but non the less is not true. Another would be where the fiction ends and the reality begins.

What style of story one finds boring is largely dependent on (a) the extent to which you understand what is going on in the story (understanding the metaphors, symbols, conventions, etc) and (b) cultural.

Leviticus and various other parts of the Bible are generally found to be boring. Repetition and lack of perceived relevance to our lives add up to boredom.

As to the cruelty, violence, etc - the perspective one draws on that seems to heavily depend inversely on how immersed one is in those stories - the Jewish people have never seen the "cruel God" in their scriptures that atheists and some Christians seem to find there.

I see your point and I hope the Jews do too; their behaviour in Israel to the natives of the land is, well, reminds us of the way we treated our natives doesn't it?

That misunderstands ancient genalogies and Jesus' comments. To the later - people refered to shared significant stories in near identical ways whether they regard those shared stories as fiction, history, myth, whatever. Listen to two Trekies (say) talking about what happens in the latest film and you'd probably have to listen for quite a long time before they anything that directly told you it was fiction they were talking about.

Genalogies make significant links - (and make a theological point about death in the case of the Genesis 5 ones that are meant to be read aloud). They aren't trying to make anachronistic claims about historicity for the benefit of 19th century audiences.

You'd be surprised. But Noah and Job aren't the same types of stories. Noah is myth - explaining in narrative form why God can't wipe out evil by force. Job is fiction - an ancient fiction no doubt, but working in a very similar way to a modern novel exploring an issue without trying to give a final answer. But Genesis 1-11 isn't concerned with telling you that it isn't history any more than it is in telling you that it is history. It's trying to tell you about the problem with the world. Bringing "did this really happen" to a text like that is our culture's problem, its not the question its original audience would have wanted to ask of a text like that.

Sadly much of Christianity is very good at mission (recruiting people) and appallingly bad at discipleship (training and educating them once you've recruited them).

It is hard to avoid thinking of an analogy to weeds which germinate and spread rapidly as the popular Bible-bashing Christianity vs the tall trees which take more effort but last longer. Which will win in the long run I wouldn't like to guess. Unfortunately I was one of the weeds.

David is the king - the closest the nation ever got to a king who ever fulfilled the job description. And what David is depicted as is the whole nation summed up in one person, so that whatever is true of David is true of Israel as a whole, and vice-versa. Hence he get's called by one of Israel's titles - Son of God. And that's then what any true king annointed by God is supposed to be - Israel in person. So the Messiah (annointed [king]) is just that - Israel in person. So when the Messiah does what Israel was called to do but never could do, he does it as and on behalf of all of Israel. When he dies for the nations sins he does that as their representative King. When he rises again he does that as their respresentative King. And so on. Whatever is true of Jesus is true of Israel because that's what he represents, and whatever is true of Israel is true of all humanity because that's what Israel is called to represent, and so on outwards in layers of representation to all of creation. When Jesus dies for sin, he does so for all creation. When he rises New Creation begins for all creation.

Interesting, very interesting.

 

[razeontherock]

Back then, in the centuries around 500 BC, [Job]stories

I'll cut off your spouting nonsense right there. Job was a contemporary of Abraham. Currently you (apparently) have no desire to see the Truth of any of this, so I won't waste any more of my time.

You have left the realm of asking a question about the purpose of reading the OT, to standing on your soapbox. If you just need to vent a while that's ok with me. If you're ever sincerely interested in perspective outside of your own, to help answer the question in your thread title, PM me re: Job which would be an excellent place to start. If such a time occurs I'll remove you from my ignore list to see if you've been able to muster a reasonable attitude.

If you're going to intentionally distort all of it's points and go "lalala I can't hear you," (to G-d Himself, not me I'm irrelevant) then reading the OT does no good, and possibly more harm than good.