God & Violence: God's capriciousness in the OT

[beaglelady]

@Casper_Hesp

For example, I think (and sincerily hope) that there is only a small fraction of people who would view the “pillar of fire” travelling with the Jews through the desert as nothing but an “embellishment” added by Jewish scribes for political reasons.

I would hope that evangelicals would be able to comprehend that the pillar of fire symbolizes the presence of God and was not a literal fire.

[still_learning]

@Casper_Hesp

Hi Still_Learning,
I hope you are aware that the fraction of theological “oddballs” on this Forum is significantly higher than in the general public of BioLogos supporters, which consists primarily of evangelical Christians. So discussions on many topics (such as the authenticity of the OT) here tend to give a skewed impression of the actual “climate” of thinking among BioLogos supporters, in my opinion. For example, I think (and sincerily hope) that there is only a small fraction of people who would view the “pillar of fire” travelling with the Jews through the desert as nothing but an “embellishment” added by Jewish scribes for political reasons.

Thanks. I genuinely appreciate the heads up or looking out for me. Though maybe it is in defense of your own position, or the BioLogos supporters

But I get the tone that you have read some of my previous posts and see me as a confused/lost sheep and and taking it upon yourself as a shepherd to ensure my safety from the pandora’s box I am about to open?

I am not ready to jump in the pool of “Jewish embellishment” yet. But I always welcome questioning to my “knowledge castle” as I can’t always figure out what is indoctrination or what I believe until it is challenged and brought up to the forefront of my thoughts. But my foundation is in the faithfulness, love and righteousness of God, so that can’t be shaken.

As the @Kendal said, “What kind of application can I derive from this”. I believe the gospels are about Jesus, the OT was pointing to Jesus, and the NT is explaining how everything points to Jesus. But if I don’t understand how always, it is ok. I can attempt to re-look at things, or just let it be. The faithful Jews that didn’t understand the OT until Jesus Himself explained it to them. So I am OK, knowing that I don’t know everything and might not every. But I do feel in trying to know God more is part of loving Him with all my mind, so it is still a journey I am on till I go to be with Him.

@aleo

I will admit it, @stilllearning, I’m an odd ball.

So am I, so were many of the humans God used in the OT and NT. God is great at using faulty, frail, odd ball people to give Him the glory. I would even say, not just “able to use them” but prefers to use them, as our weakness is made perfect in His strength. As long as you are an oddball for the glory of God, amen!

Though I really do enjoy your insights. I really like your “original blessing” vs “original sin”. That lines up well with the scriptures and my own thoughts. I am 20 pages deep in your website and enjoying it.

I also appreciate your knowledge and zeal to know God, so your words carry much weight. To those that have been given much, much is expected.

@aleo

it was meant to give authority for the Mosaic Law that accompanied the history.

I thought God gave authority over Mosaic law? Though I can see how a grander display of His power could grant more authority to His law. Though I am not yet conceding this is the case.

@aleo

it is only reasonable to use other sources, when available, to check on the accuracy of the account of a particular event.

This is where I lack intelligence and education in. As of now, I do like to find a Christian scientist (like many on this site) and give their words great leverage when learning on something verses looking it up myself. Not necessarily 1 person, but if a group or again less amount of people that I respect, I am more inclined to believe it. Even from an atheist (depending on who), if they have shown complete devotion to the truth and won’t lie even to further their agenda, I can believe them.

Though when they can’t even come to a consensuses, I normally default to my original indoctrination.

@aleo

Why would a just God overlook the efforts of the long term inhabitants and hand the land over to newcomers?

We might not even know the answer to that. We might not even know that God overlooked these efforts. Like @jlock said, they might have known about God and His intentions for that land to be the Israelite’s. Rahab knew of them, she heard of the mighty Hand of God and their deliverance from Egypt.

God ‘overlooked’ that Esau was the firstborn and “should” have received the promise, but gave it to Jacob. God doesn’t always follow our logic or customs. His ways are higher than ours. He does as He wills, to further His will.

At the time, His will was to give the Israelite’s a land, through which they would ideally prosper, and save the world. Which didn’t happen until Jesus, an Israelite did it to fulfill the promise.

Why does anyone deserve anything? God gives and takes as He pleases, BUT, He is merciful and loving. Those are 2 known things about God. He is merciful and loving, AND, His will is done. This is the paradigm/glasses I look through when reading the OT.

So if you get in the way of God, I believe He will first ask you to move, maybe many times. But if you don’t, the consequences are on you, that train is coming. We have stories of

Who gave the Canaanites the strength, knowledge, and resources to be able to survive? I would be careful to say it was of their own merit. I am careful to say my strength, health, knowledge, and talent comes from my own merit. It is a blessing of God, everything He gave me, is to be used for His glory. The second I forget that and have self entitlement, I better watch out and be ready to be humbled. Whether than is through my kingdom getting pillaged or my very body being cursed.

As opposed to throwing out so much of the OT as embellishment, I am more inclined to see it through the glasses of love and mercy that is shown throughout much of the Bible.

Stories like being delivered from slavery, are so foreshadowing of how Jesus delivered the world. The passover lamb and blood saving them, Jesus’ blood saving us. Rahab and a scarlet saving her like a passover. There are so many stories that point to Jesus, I can’t really throw that out.

@aleo

Were the Canaanites evil and Abrahams clan more holy? Who says so, other than the authors of the OT.

Technically yes, the Israelite’s where more holy (when honoring the laws and commandants). That is why some of them were allowed in the temple of God. But not through their doing or actions were they more holy (capable fo being), but because God chose them. They were to be a nation of priests mediated for the rest of humanity before God, as Jesus does.

But I don’t think this says the Canaanites were less holy and deserved to be killed due to this. I am just as unholy as them, but I don’t think God wants to kill me.

Though there are more stories of God humbling a people that refuse to acknowledge Him. Example in my post above about the finger and Belshazzar or even Nebuchadnezzar who were humbled by God. One was brought low, turned from his ways and was exalted. The other had greater hubris, it was announced to him and disregarded and died shortly after.

We can’t say for sure either way if God warned the Canaanites, but we can see many stories of God warning, and we know He is loving and merciful, so I am inclined to believe their hubris got them killed.

As far as women and children who didn’t seem to have pride or any steak in the game. Again to my points above, were possibly they were spared (as the Canaanites come up again). Possibly they fled the city and only the men stayed to fight and the children and women that did remain (which were probably very few) the blood was on the heads of the fathers that kept them there.

So yes, more holy (capable), technically, but no, no more deserving of life or inherently better or more valued humans.

@aleo

Egypt where they were welcomed as workers (and eventually became slaves?)

They were welcomed as humans. They were because Jacob (who name was changed to Israel) had a son named Joseph, who saved the Egyptians from death by interpreting dreams that allowed them to save food in the good years so they had food for the famine. Joseph being number 2, was allowed much things, one of them being, bringing his brothers (Israelite’s) to Egypt to be partakers of the land, honorable Egyptians.

It wasn’t until the true Egyptians saw the blessings of God in their many offspring over 70 generations (some 400 years) that they began to fear them and then (while numbers were small enough to control) made them slaves and began to kill offspring so that they wouldn’t have enough numbers to rise up against them.

@aleo

the Jews longed for the better food they enjoyed in Egypt,

This just shows how even those who are given food from our Provider, will still complain.

@aleo

and they collected all the gold they had accumulated (as slaves?) and fashioned an idol.

Ex 12:36 The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

They accumulated the gold as slaves, bring released from scared and scarred Egyptians. Who had plenty of gold as they saved the world from death and famine.

Who is to say that the Egyptians didn’t save the Canaanites from death with their stores of food? Again, was it the “efforts” of the Canaanites that allowed them to survive in their land, or the help of God through the Egyptians (through Joseph) that allowed survival?

I do believe it could have been the embellishment of the Israelite’s when they bragged about how they destroyed the land in all that was in it. But when God told them to kill all in it, I don’t think that was embellishment or justification of the past.

@aleo

The 40 yrs (?) the Jews spent in the desert must have hardened them a great deal, and Joshua was able to form them into an army capable of overwhelming their past benefactors, the Canaanites.

I don’t know about that. You can’t really become a hardened military vet without war. Training can only do so much, you need experience.

Though I don’t think they were hardened or trained for 40 years. They did train in how to follow God though. God is the one that allowed victory, not their training. Does marching around a fortified city wall sound like great military strategy or something that required hardened soldiers?

@aleo

All of this is interesting from a historical point of view, but it is not vital in the way I form my Christian Faith.

Amen brother!

@beaglelady

I would hope that evangelicals would be able to comprehend that the pillar of fire symbolizes the presence of God and was not a literal fire.

I never thought about that before, but I guess I can see that. God lead them night and day. But they wondered for 40 years and camped when told, and moved when told. I guess God could have told Moses to wonder and lead them a specific location of noting. Or just allowed them to wonder aimlessly going back and forth, but not too close to Canaan until time? Or had specific destinations with resources for them at these new locations?

Again example of not sure of truth, but doesn’t change anything in my beliefs.

[Casper_Hesp]

@still_learning

But I get the tone that you have read some of my previous posts and see me as a confused/lost sheep and and taking it upon yourself as a shepherd to ensure my safety from the pandora’s box I am about to open?

That is not what I meant, I am sorry if it came across as patronizing. I actually really enjoy reading your posts, you demonstrate an inspiring willingness to learn (true to your Forum name!).

@still_learning

I am not ready to jump in the pool of “Jewish embellishment” yet.

What I meant to say is that many of us are comfortably hanging out in the pool of “Jewish historicity” most of the time, when occasionally visiting the more symbolic interpretations when the Scriptures themselves indicate so. In this particular case, I don’t think a purely symbolic interpretation of the pillar of fire is sufficiently warranted by the text. Also I consider it unlikely that Moses’ generation of Jews would pass on such remarkable events (pillars of fire provide some pretty remarkable visuals) to their children if they didn’t happen that way, given that they themselves were present as a cloud of witnesses.

[Kendal (Kendal Howard)]

Love Pete Enns & Denis. They used to participate in this forum?

[beaglelady]

@Kendal

Love Pete Enns & Denis. They used to participate in this forum?

They weren’t merely participants; they were regular contributors. But the previous regime wanted a more fundamentalist approach and they were canned. (At one point Denis Lamoureux’s material was actually removed, but it has since been restored.)

Here is Pete’s Website: https://peteenns.com/ He also has a blog. It was disturbing when he was ousted, because there was no chance to say goodbye, as there was with departing contributors. He simply disappeared, but I managed to track him down. I enjoy his blog and I would like to read his books.

[Kendal (Kendal Howard)]

Oh man that would’ve been awesome! So that’s why he isn’t with biologos anymore? I follow his blog & watch his live Q&A on Facebook. I’m reading his book The Sin of Certainty at the moment. I def want to read the incarnation scripture book & The Bible Tells Me so. Also a fan of the podcast.

[beaglelady]

I guess the book must be pretty good?

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@beaglelady

They weren’t merely participants; they were regular contributors. But the previous regime wanted a more fundamentalist approach and they were canned. (At one point Denis Lamoureux’s material was actually removed, but it has since been restored.)

Thanks for this info. I was unaware of it. It makes me wonder why I am still allowed here, since I am such a maverick. Perhaps it is because I present scientific arguments so poorly that I am not considered any real threat to the fundamentalist approach. (?)
Al Leo

[Casper_Hesp]

I personally appreciate your contributions to the Forum, despite the fact that I often don’t agree entirely .

Denis Lamoureux is still heavily promoted by BioLogos. Everyone who visited the BioLogos conference received his book for free: “Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes!”. Also, @jstump wrote this post recently:

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/new-free-online-course-on-science-and-religion-by-denis-lamoureux

Also, Pete Enns contributed this post recently on BioLogos, reviewing the book of @DennisVenema:

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/adam-and-the-genome-some-thoughts-from-pete-enns

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@still_learning

Again example of not sure of truth, but doesn’t change anything in my beliefs.

That is what is really important: not being so cocksure of the truth you once held so that it cannot be modified in the slightest when you encounter something in life that adds information you had not previously considered. We seem to have a lot in common in that respect. When I first encountered Darwinian evolution in high school I thought it was going to change my belief as a Christian. But I was as dogged as you are in trying to get the “full picture”. And now I have a greater appreciation for my God, as well as for myself, to believe it took billions of years to create the humanity of which I am a part. Not just POOF, and voila, behold the finished product, Adam.

I know you are disturbed by my skeptical view of the Old Testament. Probably I err as much being too critical as the folks who consider OT as the Truth dictated directly by God. Just remember that we judge the past by those who wrote the history of it and have carefully preserved it. The authors of the OT were strongly motivated for future generations to consider that their claim to the Promised Land was legitimized by God himself. And, lo & behold, 4,000 yrs later, it is still the sticking point in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

@still_learning

Ex 12:36 The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.

They accumulated the gold as slaves, bring released from scared and scarred Egyptians. Who had plenty of gold as they saved the world from death and famine.

This quote from the OT seems to make no sense whatsoever. I don’t believe it is supported by anything in Egyptian history. And it seems to contradict the idea that the Israelites were held as downtrodden slaves. This is the sort of passage that was included in the OT to impress the Jews that their leaders were powerful because they were being directed by God. To me, in this day and age, it only tends to de-legitimize the entire OT, or at least makes it less reliable.
Al Leo

[Kendal (Kendal Howard)]

Hey Al, what’s your stance on the OT? Like regarding the bible as “God’s word” or whatever you want to call it? (I personally think we need to get another phrase of describing the bible because “God’s word” carries too much baggage and assumptions with it)

[beaglelady]

That’s nice, but you guys (the previous regime) did oust him and we didn’t get a chance to say goodbye. And at one point Denis Lamoureux’s posts were removed. I know; I was here.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@beaglelady

George, I’ve heard this idea (a small band of Israelite slaves escaping from Egypt) from several reliable sources.

@beaglelady:

This is not a particularly controversial idea. It’s the only alternative when archaeology can find no record of any large bodies of semites in the Sinai.

Some have offered the suggestion that the term for “thousands” is a mis-translation for the term for “tents” … meaning, instead, that there were 6,000 tents of refugees fleeing Egypt, rather than 6,000 Thousands of refugees.

I find this interpretation reasonable.

What I don’t find reasonable is placing Exodus before 1130 BCE, on the grounds that Exodus specifically describes the fleeing slaves avoiding the Philistine coast (because of the risk of battling both Egyptians and Philistines at the same time).

This only makes sense if the Philistines are actually located there … and they didn’t arrive in that location until after 1200 or so (some historians describe this as an Egyptian-sponsored settlement) - - with the Philistines turning against the Egyptian management of their external affairs around 1130 BCE.

[beaglelady]

Numbers in the Bible are often symbolic. (That dirty word again.) You’ve probably noticed that the number 40 pops up quite a bit. And sometimes the numbers are inflated.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@beaglelady

Numbers in the Bible are often symbolic. (That dirty word again.) You’ve probably noticed that the number 40 pops up quite a bit. And sometimes the numbers are inflated.

This suggests another line of questioning:

1. Did the scribes have enough historical information to actually know when the Philistines arrived?.. and just ignored it, for the sake of numerical symbolism? This would explain why they had Abraham meet with them some 700 years prior to their arrival.

2. Or did the scribes have no real idea of when the Philistines arrived… knowing only that they were not native to the land?

[beaglelady]

What can I say? This is biblical narrative.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Right on cue, here is the first installment of a review of a recent John Walton book on the subject:

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: Questions and Controveries–A Look at John...

[beaglelady]

I saw that. It looks good. I just wonder If he covers the problems of dating the exodus, archaeology, and the contradictions right in scripture.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Oh, Blech… < pardon the technical jargon!

More moralistic cherry picking … served up cold…

“Secondly, we simply cannot judge the Torah and the Conquest by modern standards of morality.”
[Of course not, because that would contribute to a terrible gap in values…]

“Furthermore, what is being described in the Book of Joshua is ancient warfare, plain and simple. From the ancient perspective, there is nothing in the Conquest narrative that would have been considered shocking or immoral—it was basically done according to the accepted rules of ancient warfare.”
[Yes, everyone did it … so it is okay.]

“As Walton puts it, “The ancient world did not perceive of war as an irreconcilable evil that modern people do”… And specifically, when it came to the Conquest, no one would have classified those events as war crimes. As strange as it may sound to us in the modern world, what is being described in the Conquest narrative would not have been seen as immoral from the ancient perspective.”
[Far be it from a modern reader like me to apply modern morality to killing and slaughter … and come up with an odious comparison.]

But honestly, I thought the flaw in the modern world view was that it was too permissive … not that it was too judgmental…

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@Kendal

Hey Al, what’s your stance on the OT? Like regarding the bible as “God’s word” or whatever you want to call it? (I personally think we need to get another phrase of describing the bible because “God’s word” carries too much baggage and assumptions with it)

Hi Kendal
My views coincide pretty much with the posts that follow mine: @gbrooks9 & @jpm. Be sure to read the book review on the link provided by Phil. The review says:
we simply cannot judge the Torah and the Conquest by modern standards of morality. Furthermore, what is being described in the Book of Joshua is ancient warfare, plain and simple. From the ancient perspective, there is nothing in the Conquest narrative that would have been considered shocking or immoral
I agree and this is why I cannot recommend that my great grandson reads it with that in mind–that it provides moral guidance. Here is a Walton quote from the book itself:
We should not imagine that God is constantly shaping humanity to ever-higher levels of goodness or morality that will eventually achieve the ideal”

My world view, based on Original Blessing replacing Original Sin, leads me in opposite direction. That is the only way Original Sin makes sense–Adam’s refusal (and ours) to accept God’s gift of conscience to lift ourselves (by his grace) above our evolved animal nature into creatures worthy of the title, Image Bearer.
keep on searching
Al Leo