The god of the old testament has . . . . issues

[Arrian]

Jon,

I read it to mean that each time Pharoah shaped up (due to one of the plagues), God interevened and made him (in whole or in part) change his mind again and go back to persecuting the Jews. Then he could once again bring a plague to display his power. Rinse, repeat, culminating in the destruction of Egypt's army in the Red Sea.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If it was written from the prospective of God, we probably couldn't understand it.

I hate this argument! Of course you could understand it. God is omnipotent. If he wants humans to be able to understand it from his perspective, then humans will be able to understand it from his perspective.

[Jon Miller]

No, it is the understanding that the Bible was written by people, and is a written work.

Interpreting every way to make it look bad, or to make God look bad, which is much more worthless to the discussion then what I have just said.

How does anything I have said render the discussion moot? And I am a lot more conservative in my viewpoint then you, because I maintain that you have to use the whole Bible to interpret itself, rather then the destructionist approach (where you take peices, interpret them in differing ways, and then show differences between your interpretations).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I hate this argument! Of course you could understand it. God is omnipotent. If he wants humans to be able to understand it from his perspective, then humans will be able to understand it from his perspective.

Yes, he is omnipotent. And so he had humans write down the message because that was the best way to get across the message.

True, God could just cause it to instantaneously pop into our heads.

But where is the freewill in that? God's limitations are ones he chooses to set for Himself (and mostly deal with giving us freewill).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
Jon,

I read it to mean that each time Pharoah shaped up (due to one of the plagues), God interevened and made him (in whole or in part) change his mind again and go back to persecuting the Jews. Then he could once again bring a plague to display his power. Rinse, repeat, culminating in the destruction of Egypt's army in the Red Sea.

-Arrian

Yes, and I am saying that this is a figure of speech that was used at the time, or an prospective of the writer.

In other areas it says that Pharoah hardened his heart against God. And the God hardened so and so's heart, is only found in certain books all from the same time period.

Interpret the Bible as a whole, not in parts.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Talk about a viewpoint that allows you to interpret the Bible in any manner you want.

This is true of anything written...

JM

[Lorizael]

You are expanding this discussion far beyond its original scope. If you want to get into the totality of the bible, I would claim that it is impossible to gain any degree of spirituality or faith from a giant tome written by countless authors with just as many different viewpoints and translated by countless other theologians with just as many different viewpoints. I can't see how it could possibly maintain its status as the Word of God.

[Arrian]

I read the book, Jon, and I question it. I think critically. This stuff just leaps off the page.

edit: it's not by any means just Exodus. Genesis we've already discussed. Leviticus has been mentioned. But if you are simply going to ignore the bits that are unsavory... well, fine by me, I guess.

The difference between us vis-a-vis the Bible is that I don't start with the underlying assumption that there is a God and that the Bible reveals TRUTH.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

And I am saying that it is only through the totality of the Bible that you can truly gain understanding of God. If you look at just peices, you are prone to misinterpret since you are of a different culture and time period then the author, and additionally that author has an incomplete understanding of God.

The translation thing (again) is not really a factor, at least for the last 1900 years. And if it was not a factor for 1900 years, it isn't likely to be a factor for longer...

If you mean current translations, well, if you are truly interested in studying then you can learn to read the old languages yourself. Aditionally, there are all sorts of theologians with different perspectives that it should be possible to read different viewpoints of translations (just like you should do when watching the news).

Jon Miller
(as in we have copies that dats from 1900+ years ago of different books of the Bible, and mistranslations are minimum)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Arrian
The difference between us vis-a-vis the Bible is that I don't start with the underlying assumption that there is a God and that the Bible reveals TRUTH.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
I read the book, Jon, and I question it. I think critically. This stuff just leaps off the page.

edit: it's not by any means just Exodus. Genesis we've already discussed. Leviticus has been mentioned. But if you are simply going to ignore the bits that are unsavory... well, fine by me, I guess.

The difference between us vis-a-vis the Bible is that I don't start with the underlying assumption that there is a God and that the Bible reveals TRUTH.

-Arrian

Hmm, see I would say that I beleive that every book reveals truth of a type (sometimes a very skewed truth, see Rand's novels).

But as such, I am not ignoring the bits that are unsavory. I am saying that you should read the whole Bible. Others, who were closer to time period of the writers of Exodus, interprets Exodus to meaning that Pharoah hardened his heart against God. This is said in some of the prophets, who should know. That makes it likely, as I said, that we are seeing a prospective or figure of speech there.

As I said, cutting up the Bible peicemeal, and then interpreting it in fashions so as to reveal inconsistencies of ideas, isn't fair nor is it a proper way to do criticism.

It leaps off the page only if you are looking at a small peice, not the whole. As I have said, some of the things you have found issue with, people have understood better then you for 1000s of years.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

As I said, cutting up the Bible peicemeal, and then interpreting it in fashions so as to reveal inconsistencies of ideas, isn't fair

Why not?

I treat the Bible much as I would treat any other work of (supposed) non-fiction. Perhaps moreso because it purports to tell us how to live our lives.

People have understood it better than I? Perhaps. That's the way you see it/characterize it. I might characterize it as some people have rationalized their way around the many problems with the Bible because they believe, and want to keep believing, in the parts that they like.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


This is true of anything written...

JM

Then it would seem rather absurd to me to come to this conclusion:

And I am saying that it is only through the totality of the Bible that you can truly gain understanding of God.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian

Why not?

I treat the Bible much as I would treat any other work of (supposed) non-fiction. Perhaps moreso because it purports to tell us how to live our lives.

People have understood it better than I? Perhaps. That's the way you see it/characterize it. I might characterize it as some people have rationalized their way around the many problems with the Bible because they believe, and want to keep believing, in the parts that they like.

-Arrian

Umm, there is a large group of criticism, that agrees with my anti-deconstructionist approach. What I am saying is your deconstructionist approach flies in the face of the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. You approaching it decontructionistly is an example of your wishing not to take it as the Word of God. You are basically assuming your own position, and then pleased with yourself when you are proved right.

Which of the other nonfiction books that you have read are (or claim to be) the book of a god? Maybe you should read a book of god differently then you should read a physics text book (for example of a nonfiction book that I regard as very worthwhile).

Basically, if it is the Word of God, then it should be taken as a whole. Which means reading the whole thing, and interpreting sections based upon what is said elsewhere. If, however, it is just a collection of random peoples work, then each 'book' should be read seperately and interpreted seperately. By taking every element appart from the whole, you are assuming your position that it is just a collection of random peoples stories, that there is no Inspiration behind it.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Then it would seem rather absurd to me to come to this conclusion:

And I am saying that it is only through the totality of the Bible that you can truly gain understanding of God.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

I was talking about two seperate things. One is about literature and story, the other is based (somewhat) on beleif (as I haven't read all other (or even most other) books in general, or even religious books).

And I think that you can gain understanding of God through other books, I just think (and this is a belief, I don't have enough experience to know it for truth) that the Bible is the best method to gain understanding.

And I have read a lot, close to 10000 books (OK, many of those were rereads, and most of them are science fiction/fantasy, but I do know a lot about books/stories).

Jon Miller