>I must conclude one of three things:
>1. The OT texts are in error, at least at this point.
>2. The god they describe and the God of the NT are the same, and I'm too slow of mind to understand this.
>3. The texts are not in error, but they describe the PERCEIVED commands of God by the persons writing.<
I would see an argument for option 2 in one basic weakness of your argument. Both 1 and 3, to be convincing to anyone else, require the assumption that your perception of right and wrong is superior to that of the author. I do not see any way to avoid arbitrary preference unless we agree on some authoritative guideline, not merely the product of a human agreement (as one could find another group of people who disagree).
>Given the obvious fact that some parts of scripture are, through copying and recopying, surely in error, when I find OT texts that do not, in any conceivable way, square with the God Jesus talked about and called "father,"<
I think this requires a rather selective approach to the NT, too, given that Jesus has more words about hell than about the Fatherhood of God. I do not deny that the OT passages are difficult to deal with, nor that we are not to follow the example of several situation-specific commands, but I do not think that only accepting the texts that we like is a good solution either.
>How many of us eat pork? How many of us wear clothing made of two kinds of substance? How many of us would allow our neighbors to murder our child because said child says bad words? Any hands out there? We have "picked and chosen" these parts of scripture to disobey.<
The dietary laws are specifically identified in the NT as superceded. While mixing of fibers, etc. is not specifically addressed in the NT, such regulations have generally been accepted as symbolizing the holiness and purity of God and the role of Israel as a unique nation. The latter is now superceded by the Church, whereas the symbolism can be appreciated without the ritual. Also, the general inapplicability of OT ritual to the Church is stated, despite the lack of specific details on each law.
The OT does not command us to allow our neighbors to murder our children for their misdeeds. It does prescribe the death penalty for sufficiently serious offenses on the part of children. This is execution, not murder. The penalty for such behavior today is determined by the civil magistrates and the parents; the Church may have occasion to excommunicate rebellious children, but not to execute them.
>"Inerrancy in the original autographs" is a laughable copout. Even if one agrees, for argument's sake, that such is true, it is an assertion without usefulness. It also implies God was too inept to preserve His word.<
On the contrary, it is preserved remarkably well, and the obvious errors come from things like figuring out the exact numbers in a census, which are not doctrinally important. Compare the degree of textual confidence that we have for the OT with Tobit, for example.
Inerrancy in the original autographs with diligent and faithful but errant copyists is also rather in keeping with God's style of interaction in nature, generally confining His work to the patterns described by natural laws.
>tell me, in reasoned and possible academically respectable terms, the message God is telling you in the Psalm of infant head-bashing<
1. The Bible portrays real people. Getting mocked after being hauled off into captivity while most of your friends and family killed makes them angry.
2. Anger (and anything else) should be dealt with through honest appeal to God.
3. God deals justly and can be appealed to for justice.
4. The standards of the ancient world were different from those of today. The standards in OT law were generally more compassionate than those of surrounding nations.
5. God does better than we ask. The Babylonians were indeed judged and defeated, but the Persians were relatively humane and did not make a policy of bashing baby Babylonians. Habakkuk is a good reference to look at on this point, as he has some questions similar to yours.
> in the direct commands of "god" to commit genocide<
The killing is on a religious rather than ethnic basis, so technically genocide is not quite accurate. Useful lessons include
1. Sin is serious and must be opposed at all costs.
2. Mingling with those committed to sin leads you astray. (However, we are to be in the world).
3. Sin deserves judgement.
4. God provides opportunity to repent, but it is a limited-time offer.
5. Our natural tendency is to get worse.
6. Even if God uses us in judgement, that does not mean we are any better than those judged.
7. Last-minute repentance is a possibility.
>, in the direct advice to Israelite soldiers telling them how to rape a captive girl-child after murdering her parents.<
There is a law regulating the treatment of a wife taken from the captives in battle. However, this description grossly mischaracterizes it as condoning rape. Furthermore, as this law applies to captives from lands outside the promised land, the assumption that her parents were killed first is probably incorrect. The law teaches
1. Even female prisoners of war have rights.
2. Raping enemy captives is forbidden. If you want to marry one, you have to allow her a month to mourn and recover and must give her rights as a wife.
Can we envision much better treatment of captives? Yes. However, this is a drastic improvement over much that goes on today, not to mention what was done in the second millennium BC. The NT asserts that some passages in the Law represent accommodation to the condition of the Israelites. Calvin, who probably qualifies as a conservative commentator, condemns the regulations that allow keeping a slave's family when the slave is released as an example of such accommodation. A similar consideration applies to the NT approach to slavery. Commenting on Paul's letters in the Tyndale commentary series (which I think qualifies as conservative; problems of such difficult OT passages as the ones you mention are discussed in this series), one author described his writing as not directly assailing slavery but putting a time bomb under it. Nonetheless this does not mean that the God portrayed in the OT is morally erring but rather that He is dealing with real people where they are.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "J Burgeson" <hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:13:31 -0600
>
>Robert Rogland wrote, in part:
>
>"It's time to quit lurking and help Terry Gray (I hope I'm helping) do =
>the heavy lifting."
>
>Welcome to the active users list, Robert.
>
>Robert wrote: "I am in complete agreement with Terry's recent posts ... As
>members of the ASA we all subscribe to a Statement of =
>Faith. It is quite minimal.... Nevertheless, the ASA Statement =of Faith
>does make affirmations that exclude some who profess the =Christian faith.
>One must be as orthodox as the Apostles' and Nicene =creeds. And, of
>significance for the recent exchange of postings on =Scripture, one must
>"accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and =authority of the Bible
>in matters of faith and conduct." ... we have had participants on this
>list deny that the Scriptures are =inherently inspired, maintaining that
>inspiration is the work of the =Holy Spirit in speaking through the
>Scriptures to me. One recent =posting states, "I'd say that the scripture
>is reporting faithfully what =the writer PERCEIVED to be the voice of
>God-and that he was wrong." =Another contributer terms inerrancy a
>"horribly slippery word." ... views of the =Scripture are expressed which
>are not consistent with the Statement of =Faith to which we all subscribed
>when we joined the ASA.... ."
>
>Well, I'm the one "guilty" of the first examplle and while I did not say the
>second, I'd probably agree with it.
>
>A view if scripture as "inspired by God," a view which I hold, does not mean
>that all parts of scripture are of equal value, or are to be taken as
>normative. Slavery was normative in scriptural times; the scriptures which
>refer to it (many) are, while part of the inspired text, written there by
>persons as fallible as any of us, and we must use our minds to decide how
>they are to be interpreted for our day. Or, to take a more prosaic example
>-- the apostles threw lots (dice) to make an important (to them) decision
>about who was to take the place of Judas. That does not mean that practice
>is therefore enjoined upon us for our decision making. Nor does it even mean
>that the decision to choose a replacement was in God's mind!
>
>Given the obvious fact that some parts of scripture are, through copying and
>recopying, surely in error, when I find OT texts that do not, in any
>conceivable way, square with the God Jesus talked about and called "father,"
>I must conclude one of three things:
>
>1. The OT texts are in error, at least at this point.
>2. The god they describe and the God of the NT are the same, and I'm too
>slow of mind to understand this.
>3. The texts are not in error, but they describe the PERCEIVED commands of
>God by the persons writing.
>
>I submit that any of the above three positions is consistent with a view
>that scripture is "God-breathed." I also submit that all three positions are
>worthy of respect and study, and that any person holding one of the three is
>"OK."
>
>My own position, BTW, is almost always that of an academic on issues like
>this; I have a personal view (#3) but see merit in #1 also and even a small
>probability that #2 could be correct.
>
>What I have seen are rather good arguments for #3, fair arguments for #1 and
>almost nothing but arm-waving (or silence) for #2. Checking a number of
>"conservative" commentaries, I was amazed to read that none spent any
>appreciable space discussing the problems. Position #2 was simply taken for
>granted. I am unwilling to go there.
>
>Robert asks: "Is it coherent to affirm the "divine inspiration,
>trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in =
>matters of faith" and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to =
>accept on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., one's perception of =
>what a good and loving God would say or do)?"
>
>I'd answer, of course, "yes." I'd also point out that every Christian I know
>does this. WE all "pick and choose," it is our God-given nature to do this;
>else we do not use our intellects. How many of us eat pork? How many of us
>wear clothing made of two kinds of substance? How many of us would allow our
>neighbors to murder our child because said child says bad words? Any hands
>out there? We have "picked and chosen" these parts of scripture to disobey.
>
>Robert also askes: Can one coherently affirm =the inspiration of the Bible
>and deny inerrancy? If words have any =objective meaning, the answer is
>no."
>
>I obviously disagree here. So do most Christians. The only responsible
>position to take, for someone who holds this position, is that, since the
>scriptures are demonstrably errant, they must therefore not be inspired.
>"Inerrancy in the original autographs" is a laughable copout. Even if one
>agrees, for argument's sake, that such is true, it is an assertion without
>usefulness. It also implies God was too inept to preserve His word.
>
>Robt continues: "some of =the heretical comments have been posted by ASA
>members. Does not intellectual =integrity require one to give up one's
>membership in an organization =when one no longer is in accord with its
>basic principles?"
>
>I previously agreed that I (along with all humans, past and present) are
>"heretics" in the usual meaning of the word. And I cheerfully say "yes" to
>the question posed. I re-read from time to time the ASA statements of
>principle. I see no place I am not in agreement with them. If I did, I would
>resign my 31 year membership. I make the tacit assumption that my fellow ASA
>members would do likewise.
>
>Robert concludes by writing: " I offer =these observations to stimulate
>personal reflection by all concerned. "
>
>I appreciate (really) the challenges you offered. These are serious issues,
>and like many such, are too often swept under the rug so as not to embarrass
>people. I have no reluctance to discuss them openly. And once again, I
>repeat my question, originally made to Terry -- tell me, in reasoned and
>possible academically respectable terms, the message God is telling you in
>the Psalm of infant head-bashing, in the direct commands of "god" to commit
>genocide, in the direct advice to Israelite soldiers telling them how to
>rape a captive girl-child after murdering her parents. There are other
>texts; try those three. I will give you some advice though -- don't look for
>help in the conservative commentaries.
>
>Regards
>
>Burgy (one heretic among many)
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 17 2002 - 14:20:26 EDT