In the past, I've said the same things as you're saying, God can't be like that, the bible is corrupt, Israel was doing these horrible things and attributing them to God, ect. The conflict in the middle east prompted me to reconsider the why's of the OT stories and I found a new understanding of what was going on back then, placing myself in that era of time, living as they were living.
Using America as an example, time and time again if America had not entered into conflict with other nations, America would no longer be America. As bad as war is, it's necessary at times in order to protect the existence and values of a nation, a people. So it was in OT times, war was common, the mindset of the people was different than today and extreme measures were used in order to never have to face their foe again. Completely destroy them, wipe them off the face of the earth, and then you'll have peace.
It's not so much as God changing, as it is society's changing and God interacts differently with them.
All very true.
I want to highlight something. One cannot get to know God personally by studying the OT. Here we see God dealing with a nation in that cultural context. We don't see God sitting down and teaching them personally. However, we do see this in the NT when God comes to us in Christ Jesus. If one really wants to know God's heart, God's attitude, God's desire, study Jesus.
For example, we might study the statements made and laws passed by a President in time of war. However, we can't say that we personally "know" that president. Now, if we sit down with him for dinner, or he stays in our home for an extended period, and he tells us about events, what he personally thought about them, how he personally wished they had happened, etc., then we can say that we personally know that President.
Still wondering what you think I have accused God of.
Technically, you evaded accusing God. You've only argued that the victors wrote the story, using God as a literary device to justify their actions. Now, I take issue with that because the OT doesn't show Israel very favorably. Why would a nation depict itself as God's contender? Makes little sense to me. Next, Jesus had a high regard for the OT and spoke of it as the Word of God. So... your position makes Jesus become suspect and casts doubt on His believability.
I want to highlight something. One cannot get to know God personally by studying the OT. Here we see God dealing with a nation in that cultural context. We don't see God sitting down and teaching them personally. However, we do see this in the NT when God comes to us in Christ Jesus. If one really wants to know God's heart, God's attitude, God's desire, study Jesus.
For example, we might study the statements made and laws passed by a President in time of war. However, we can't say that we personally "know" that president. Now, if we sit down with him for dinner, or stays in our home for an extended period, and he tells us about events, what he personally thought about them, how he personally wished they had happened, etc., then we can say that we personally know that President.
Technically, you evaded accusing God. You've only argued that the victors wrote the story, using God as a literary device to justify their actions. Now, I take issue with that because the OT doesn't show Israel very favorably. Why would a nation depict itself as God's contender? Makes little sense to me. Next, Jesus had a high regard for the OT and spoke of it as the Word of God. So... your position makes Jesus become suspect and casts doubt on His believability.
You mean when I asked which was more likely, God really gave those orders or the victors claim He did to justify the slaughter? Well, all I did there was ask, but you have apparently guessed correctly my own opinion of the answer, so yes, guilty as charged.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
You mean when I asked which was more likely, God really gave those orders or the victors claim He did to justify the slaughter? Well, all I did there was ask, but you have apparently guessed correctly my own opinion of the answer, so yes, guilty as charged.
I suspect you believe that the NT Jesus is exaggerated? Just a good teacher or rebel rabbi who was executed and spotted in a diner somewhere sitting next to Elvis? lol
I suspect you believe that the NT Jesus is exaggerated? Just a good teacher or rebel rabbi who was executed and spotted in a diner somewhere sitting next to Elvis? lol
Yes, I do suspect that Jesus is misquoted and His actions inaccurately recorded, at least in some cases. If the canon had been chosen differently, a very different picture would have been given.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Which reminds me, some of my own least favorite scriptures are actually in the NT! The ones that promise healing, e.g. (It would be different if they actually worked more often than they (apparently) do.)
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
In the past, I've said the same things as you're saying, God can't be like that, the bible is corrupt, Israel was doing these horrible things and attributing them to God, ect. The conflict in the middle east prompted me to reconsider the why's of the OT stories and I found a new understanding of what was going on back then, placing myself in that era of time, living as they were living.
Using America as an example, time and time again if America had not entered into conflict with other nations, America would no longer be America. As bad as war is, it's necessary at times in order to protect the existence and values of a nation, a people. So it was in OT times, war was common, the mindset of the people was different than today and extreme measures were used in order to never have to face their foe again. Completely destroy them, wipe them off the face of the earth, and then you'll have peace.
It's not so much as God changing, as it is society's changing and God interacts differently with them.
So Seekerman do you believe in an 'incorruptable Word of God'? And if you indeed do then which modern or ancient version of the Bible would that be exactly?
I am much more likely to continue to believe that to the winner goes the spoils and the right to write the history.
I dislike the begats. Some of them are interesting for research purposes, but many of them are a bit tedious. Major portions of Leviticus are also very dry, although with possible interest for research.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
Linear Mode
