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

[Jon Miller]

Oh, the comment of needing to read the totallity if what is written. This is true of any literature/story. And the Bible is a story, it is not a textbook.

There are many interpretations to make, that is what so many people don't understand. Read some criticism of literature, there are different historical, feminist, marxist, and other prospectives (even Christian ones ) which are all possible interpretations of the stories. And these are for stories/literature that is less then 200 years old.

Stories are often ambiguous. This is true of both true stories, and works of fiction. But also, stories (of both types) can impart deeper (and more complicated) truths than those written in a text book.

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

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.

Wait. Let me get this straight. I'm the one who is assuming things about the Bible?

I simply do NOT assume that it's true (literally true or true in some other sense), the Word of God, or anything else in particular other than a collection of stories.

Meanwhile, you (believer) appear to assume that it is the Word of God and, as such, must be approached in a certain way and protected from critical thought.

-Arrian

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by 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.

Ask any observant Jew in America how.

The *TORAH*, lets get one term straight first. If its fair to call others religions holy books by other names and it not be offensive, then it should be fair game the other way, no? Would it be acceptable if we called the “Bible” or the “New Testament” the “The Book Written By Closest Homosexual Who Feared Intimacy And Thus Spread Their Bias To Much Of The World” lets call the Koran the “Book Written Post-Facto By War Mongering, Expansionists With Genocide On Their Mind To Justify Mass Murder For Their Own Wealth”. Would you react the same way? Calling the Torah the old testament gives it a connotation that it is either incorrect or unimportant. Call it the Torah if you want. Heck, call it the Septuagint which was the first Greek translation. Call it the Five Books of Moses. You have PLENTY of options to call it. Don’t call it the Old Testament. I can’t speak for all Jews or even a majority, but I can say for myself that hearing it called the Old Testament always pisses me off and I know I am not alone in this.


As to who hardened Pharoah’s heart….. I would submit this: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html

Originally posted by Lorizael
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.

The Torah has to stand up to the same scrutiny as everything else. Faith is an offensive concept to many(most) Jews and little different then willful ignorance.

As far as the Torah is questionably accurate historically, we have to keep that in mind. The moral messages of the Torah, rules of conduct to live your life by, do not undergo that scrutiny and that is far more important then whether or not the flood happened(and it almost definitely did not occur as the Torah describes).

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Oh, the comment of needing to read the totallity if what is written. This is true of any literature/story. And the Bible is a story, it is not a textbook.

There are many interpretations to make, that is what so many people don't understand. Read some criticism of literature, there are different historical, feminist, marxist, and other prospectives (even Christian ones ) which are all possible interpretations of the stories. And these are for stories/literature that is less then 200 years old.

Stories are often ambiguous. This is true of both true stories, and works of fiction. But also, stories (of both types) can impart deeper (and more complicated) truths than those written in a text book.

Jon Miller

The Torah is a story and a textbook, it depends which part of it your focusing on. Some of the story can be proven to reasonable certainty, some of it is highly suspect. Parts of it read like a laundy list of instructions.

Originally posted by Arrian


Wait. Let me get this straight. I'm the one who is assuming things about the Bible?

I simply do NOT assume that it's true (literally true or true in some other sense), the Word of God, or anything else in particular other than a collection of stories.

Meanwhile, you (believer) appear to assume that it is the Word of God and, as such, must be approached in a certain way and protected from critical thought.

-Arrian

My religious problem my entire life is while I am not an expert in any specific field of science or history, I have been an avid study of both science and history my entire life-which was encouraged by my religious parents by the way. Science and history make much of the Torah highly improbable, borderline impossible, or flat out impossible as written. I am a practicing Jew, but I can’t decide week to week whether G-D even exists or not.

The Torah can be a valuable guide on how to live ones life, even independently of the existence of G-D.

[Arrian]

“Book Written Post-Facto By War Mongering, Expansionists With Genocide On Their Mind To Justify Mass Murder For Their Own Wealth”.

Sounds like the bit where God tells the Hebrews to kill off the Canaanites and take their land & women.

...

Originally posted by Lorizael
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.

Erm. That was me.

But overall to your post.

-Arrian

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Arrian


Sounds like the bit where God tells the Hebrews to kill off the Canaanites and take their land & women.

...

Didn't happen. I don't care what the Torah says, this can be archaelogicaly proven to NOT occur. The Jews didn't put most of the canaanites to the sword-there is overwhelming archaeological evidence to the contrary. Why the Torah says this-there are lots of arguments why, some justifiable, some not... but it did not happen.

The Torah also says that when they sieged a city, they had to siege it on only 3 sides and leave the fourth side free, so they occupants could flee.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yes. Pharoah didn't have much free will there, did he? God wanted to make a point/show off, so he "hardened Pharoah's heart" over and over.

Nice.

-Arrian

The 'hardening of Pharaoh's heart' only happened from the 7th plague on.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


Wait. Let me get this straight. I'm the one who is assuming things about the Bible?

I simply do NOT assume that it's true (literally true or true in some other sense), the Word of God, or anything else in particular other than a collection of stories.

Meanwhile, you (believer) appear to assume that it is the Word of God and, as such, must be approached in a certain way and protected from critical thought.

-Arrian

No, you are assuming that there is not some coherent thought, or purpose to the Bible. That is why you feel comfortable decontructing it into parts, and interpreting them seperately. If you had an open mind, you would consider the possibility that the Bible did have a unifying purpose and would read it as such. Which wouldn't (according to some groups, there are deconstructionists) include reading and interpreting a small section independently to the rest.

Is what I am saying that hard to understand? Let's say if you had some novel that had been broken up to fit in a magazine or something (was common for Sci Fi and other such things back in the day, I think Dickens had some of his work done similiarly). Then you went, and made conclusions based upon one 'chapter' about what was going on/what the message was without reading the other chapters. Hence, you are assuming that the Bible isn't one coherent book when you do so.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Vesayen

The Torah is a story and a textbook, it depends which part of it your focusing on. Some of the story can be proven to reasonable certainty, some of it is highly suspect. Parts of it read like a laundy list of instructions.

I am interested in the Jewish prospective. Most Christians treat it as a story though, not as a textbook. But you do agree that it is a story (so we share common ground).

From my prospective, it is the story of God's wish to be intimate with us (mostly the Jews in the OT), and man's and His responses.

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

I did not say it was an untrue story. Obviously Jews think the portions of the Torah which tell a story, are true. How much of it is true and how true it is, varies Jew to Jew.

I would say that everything from the construction of the first Temple on, while not all proven, is historically probable and the further on we go, likley true. From the construction of the second temple on, I would say it is mostly true. The further back we go from that, the more problematic it is for me to say it is true.

Some Jews will say the whole thing is true.

Most sit someplace in-between.

The story of the Torah is not necessarily something to be imitated. Some of it is moralistic messages, some of it *IS* actual history, or reads a lot like it. Why imitate actual history? There are large parts of the Torah which give nothing but instructions on dos and don'ts.

A great deal of what Jews take as moral messages and instruction is in the oral tradition. When you say oral tradition, it may invoke images of some African tribal shaman passing off history from person to person.. simply put, in Judaism it is more credible.

The oral tradition has long since been written down and endless commentaries written on as a result-that contains a huge portion of what Jews follow which are seen to be both rules handed down but not in the Torah, and interpretations of the Torah by the sages(Torah scholars of days gone by).

Every Jew is highly encouraged to question all of these rules and there are commentaries of thousands upon thousands of pages, which do just that-I really mean that. In my own opinion THAT idea of questioning is more valuable then every moral message and code of conduct in the Torah. It introduced me to analytical reasoning at a very young age, my intellectual development would not of been anywhere near it is now, had I not gotten that at a young age.

[Jon Miller]

There are similiar things among Christian Theologians (not as old, of course).

Of course, as a precentage, I think that less Christians get into the theology of the religion, which I think is a shame.

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

There is not a single *religious* Jew on the planet, who has not studied theology. Its part of our system.

As to intimacy.... its not just for the Jews, but for everyone. The Torah is for everyone, not just Jews-but only Jews need study it. Jews don't do missionary work and are sceptical to take converts. The "purpose" of the Jewish people given to us by G-D is to act as a moral example to the rest of the world, so that they will look at us and also act well. The non-Jews are not required or urged to observe 99.9% of the Torah, the hope is they see us living good, nice lives and follow in our example, to something aproximating the noahkide laws(which is basicaly do not kill, steal, love thy brother etc).

The Noahkide laws are VERY simple and the most important thing they do NOT contain, is that non Jews are under absolutley NO compulsion to worship G-D or even acknowledge his existance, just be nice to each other.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Vesayen
There is not a single *religious* Jew on the planet, who has not studied theology. Its part of our system.

As to intimacy.... its not just for the Jews, but for everyone. The Torah is for everyone, not just Jews-but only Jews need study it. Jews don't do missionary work and are sceptical to take converts. The "purpose" of the Jewish people given to us by G-D is to act as a moral example to the rest of the world, so that they will look at us and also act well. The non-Jews are not required or urged to observe 99.9% of the Torah, the hope is they see us living good, nice lives and follow in our example, to something aproximating the noahkide laws(which is basicaly do not kill, steal, love thy brother etc).

The Noahkide laws are VERY simple and the most important thing they do NOT contain, is that non Jews are under absolutley NO compulsion to worship G-D or even acknowledge his existance, just be nice to each other.

I (for the msot part) agree, but the OT is very Israel centric

Jon Miller

[Vesayen]

The state of Israel is not a theocracy, and it is very Israel centric because we have alot of Israeli posters and Israel is often in the news heh.

[Jon Miller]

When I say OT I mean Old Testament...

sorry

peace,
JM

[Vesayen]

LOL I thought OT meant.... OT-you know, the off topic forum .