quote:

---

Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary
and deliver Jacob to utter destruction
and Israel to reviling

---

quote:

---

and your leaders descrated my sanctuary;
that is why I put Jacob under my solemn curse
and left Israel to be reviled

---

quote:

---

Therefore I profaned the princes of the sanctuary,
I delivered Jacob to utter destruction,
and Israel to reviling.

---

You will spot the tense change. The problem is that the Hebrew tense is the 'continous' so the ambiguity is there in the original. Yes Isaiah is talking to the situation he finds himself in, but we as Christians quite happily read future prophecy into other ambiguities in the prophets soI can not rule this out.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Links to the above passages:

1 Samuel 9
Josha 6:20-21

Don't forget to include the links, folks. It helps us to want to stay involved in the Keryg threads!


Very interesting thread, Psyduck. I want to add some thoughts but I will have to wait till later this evening.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A classical bit of Psyduck questioning. Can I provoke you a bit more? We'll need to avoid a Purg dimension and also a Dead Horse, but there is a really important general issue of Biblical Interpretation here. Here's the deep issue.

1. Is it possible to hold to the principle that scripture is authoritative and inspired (that's not the same as inerrant) and yet be open to the possibility that some stuff in the Bible stinks!

My personal answer to that is "yes". There are plenty of "stinky bits" in the OT for example, whose only real value today can be that they serve as an example of how not to think and behave. Here is a "charming" extract from Psalm 137.
 

---

Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
Mystics tell me that any given Bible passage can be read and understood on seven levels of understanding. Most of us can do the first level - which is to take what we read at literal face value, reading it as residents of the 21st century. The mystics say that this first level is merely "code" that hides an esoteric meaning.

I'm not a mystical OT scholar, so I don't know. But the Psalms do have some odd images here and there.

My liberal friends laugh, and say that the Bible says what it means, and means what it says - but with exceptions.

As for things in the Bible that "stink" - well, there's Ezekiel 4:9-17. You won't see that in the Lectionary.
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Well, there's my first candidate. The Saul narrative in I Samuel 9 ff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
My current pet yuk is in Isaiah 43:28, which can be read as a prediction of the holocaust. The problem with the over-reading of Isaiah is it is not an interpretation I can reject but I am not happy with it at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
My current pet yuk is in Isaiah 43:28, which can be read as a prediction of the holocaust. The problem with the over-reading of Isaiah is it is not an interpretation I can reject but I am not happy with it at all.

---

I think we can reasonably rule this out as an interpretation of the passage. Within the 'narrative framework' of Isaiah this was explicitly looking forward to the Babylonian Exile and the restoration beyond that (that within a New Testament understanding would be the fulfillment found in the ministry of Jesus Christ). Seems a very odd leap to try to tie Isaiah's 8th Century BC prophecy to the 20th Century AD atrocity, skipping over other historical events like the Exile, Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
As for things in the Bible that "stink" - well, there's Ezekiel 4:9-17. You won't see that in the Lectionary.

---

quote:

---

Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

---

quote:

---

Here is a "charming" extract from Psalm 137.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to hold to the principle that scripture is authoritative and inspired (that's not the same as inerrant) and yet be open to the possibility that some stuff in the Bible stinks!

---

quote:

---

[7] Remember, O LORD, against the E'domites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Rase it, rase it!
Down to its foundations!"
[8] O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
[9] Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

---

quote:

---

After complaining he gets to use cow dung instead. Nothing wrong with cow dung as a fuel

---

quote:

---

My commentary said the barley cakes were probably cooked directly on the hot "coals" - so directly in contact with the glowing coal-substitute.

---

Wonder if they did their steaks that way? Gives a whole new meaning to "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..."
 

---

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Certainly all those passages like Joshua 6:21 would have to be candidates for our revulsion at the oldest of the OT understandings of God's will.

---

quote:

---

[14]
"Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. [15] And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

---

And I'd print the rest of the book as a footnote, in italics...

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
... with a health warning?
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING: If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Actually, and much more seriously, of course I think that Joshua should be in the Bible. All of it. I think the questions it raises are about our reading-strategies as 21st. century Christians. It really worries me that some attitudes towards Biblical authority preclude questioning e.g. the morality of "Biblical" genocides.

I think it says something important about our attitude to the Bible if we're saying - and able to say "this is in the Bible - but I still think it stinks!"
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Actually, and much more seriously, of course I think that Joshua should be in the Bible. All of it. I think the questions it raises are about our reading-strategies as 21st. century Christians. It really worries me that some attitudes towards Biblical authority preclude questioning e.g. the morality of "Biblical" genocides.

I think it says something important about our attitude to the Bible if we're saying - and able to say "this is in the Bible - but I still think it stinks!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I like to say that "literally this is wrong, but it works as a metaphor."

Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds. As a literal piece of history, however, it is a series of atrocities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I'm actually uneasy with that. I think it is because once you say "this is OK as a metaphor", it opens the door for some to misunderstand it and attempt to literalise the metaphor.

It seems to me that as soon as anyone says "hate sin!", there are inevitably going to be others who hear that as "hate sinners".

---

OK. I can see that people will do that.

Does this mean that we can't talk about "crushing racism" for fear that people will take this too literally? It seems to me that we are pretty accustomed to these sorts of comparisons.

Still, it is true that we are also accustomed to taking things too literally.
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
My current pet yuk is in Isaiah 43:28, which can be read as a prediction of the holocaust. The problem with the over-reading of Isaiah is it is not an interpretation I can reject but I am not happy with it at all.

---

I think we can reasonably rule this out as an interpretation of the passage. Within the 'narrative framework' of Isaiah this was explicitly looking forward to the Babylonian Exile and the restoration beyond that (that within a New Testament understanding would be the fulfillment found in the ministry of Jesus Christ). Seems a very odd leap to try to tie Isaiah's 8th Century BC prophecy to the 20th Century AD atrocity, skipping over other historical events like the Exile, Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc

---

Only if we are also willing to forgo all the suffering servant passages as not referring to Christ after all if all the book of Isaiah was looking forward to the Babylonian Exile(dubious in many commentaries) and concerned solely with that and the return then it can not be concerned with something that happened several hundred years later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chemincreux:
This is not exegesis, of course. It's another story, if you like, the one that speaks to me.
But I didn't make it up. Tell me if you think I'm wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds.

---

Would you be comfortable using the Holocaust in that way? Or the driving out of North American natives?

---

Not at all. Especially as I am part Jewish and part native American.

I would be more comfortable using the defeat of Nazism or Communism that way.

Fortunately, most of the biblical stories are more like those latter than the former. Almost everyone attacked Israel after Jericho and Ai, so they make at least a partially credible victim.

But, again, I am not defending the literal stories. Those were bad times. To some extent the stories are a case of God making lemonade out of lemons.

Anyway, if they weren't lemonade you couldn't make sermons out of them. As it is they make great sermons. No one comes up afterwards all upset about what Samson did to the innocent Philistines. Yet I'm sure that the Philistines were just as innocent as anyone else in those days.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Steve Tom:

quote:

---

Pussyfooting. The whole book of Joshua goes.

---

But isn't that basically a piece of sanitizing? Isn't it morally better to keep Joshua in, and say "Well, this is one of the sources of our tradition - and it stinks. So we'd better be very careful about slipping into triumphalism..."

Of course, Joshua's always been in the Bible, since God invented printing , and maybe it's only since the Holocaust that we've been able to see the obscenity that was there all the time.

Shame we can't join the dots, and extend that same sense of obscenity to that revolting praise-song "Be bold! Be strong! For the Lord your God is with you..." Straight out of Joshua 1 that is.
 

---

Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
Hmmm. I've come across the occasional post-Enlightenment, post-liberal, neo-rational, proto-Pelagian, revisionist scholar (also known as "Son of Satan") who opines that since parts of the Holy Scripture make us uncomfortable, we should toss the whole thing out the window and make up our own rules as cafeteria Christians.

I know for sure that this isn't where this particular thread is headed, and apologize for using the above cuss words. In particular, for the part that doesn't use inclusive language.

Rather than saying that this or that "stinks", we need to understand what it MEANS. It's all there for a reason. For a lot of them, I'll go apophatic and say I have no clue WHY they're there.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Rather than saying that this or that "stinks", we need to understand what it MEANS. It's all there for a reason. For a lot of them, I'll go apophatic and say I have no clue WHY they're there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:
Pussyfooting. The whole book of Joshua goes.

---

I shall look forward to reading the prequel to your book with interest - it will obviously be very short.

If, as I understand it, the Bible is a window on the development of understanding about God through the centuries, it shows how people originally thought in terms of God as a vengeful God, punishing his enemies. This developed over time into the idea of a God of Love. Jesus wasn't into chucking the whole lot out, though.

Matthew 5: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Oreophagite:

quote:

---

Rather than saying that this or that "stinks", we need to understand what it MEANS.

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't into chucking the whole lot out, though.

Matthew 5: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

---

quote:

---

If, as I understand it, the Bible is a window on the development of understanding about God through the centuries, it shows how people originally thought in terms of God as a vengeful God, punishing his enemies. This developed over time into the idea of a God of Love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Were women who had problems with their periods really meant to be treated as they were?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
If, as I understand it, the Bible is a window on the development of understanding about God through the centuries, it shows how people originally thought in terms of God as a vengeful God, punishing his enemies. This developed over time into the idea of a God of Love. Jesus wasn't into chucking the whole lot out, though.

Matthew 5: 17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
[QB] Oreophagite:

quote:

---

Rather than saying that this or that "stinks", we need to understand what it MEANS.

---

But sometimes what it MEANS is what stinks. I'd intended this thread as a place where people could simply declare their perceptions that certain things stank, and others could come along and maybe argue the contrary. Are you saying that nothing in the Bible can stink?

---

quote:

---

With some of those passages that continue to appear to "stink" upon my feeble-minded analysis, I just have to stand back in awe and mystery.

---

quote:

---

I can't explain God, nor do I have the authority to.

---

quote:

---

I personally think it stinks that God had to incarnate as Jesus and die on the cross because we (humanity) are such sinful idiots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
But isn't that basically a piece of sanitizing?

---

quote:

---

But Psyduck - I would argue that Leviticus is as important as Jesus because that is the very book that sheds light on how insightful and daring Jesus was. Or to put it another way, it shows just how massive the journey within the OT was. And how far things had to travel to get to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petaflop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
As for things in the Bible that "stink" - well, there's Ezekiel 4:9-17. You won't see that in the Lectionary.

---

verse 15 (KJV)...

quote:

---

Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

---

After complaining he gets to use cow dung instead. Nothing wrong with cow dung as a fuel: (link).

Cow dung can also be used to make a water purifier: (link)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's actually the impulse to sanitize that concerns me. And I've said enough to indicate that that's there in me too. But we daren't sanitize, and even a too-quick disavowal is dangerous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
And I'd go so far as to say that the meaning of Joshua after Auschwitz is that there's no way back for us to an easy translation of genocide into triumphalism, or the spiritualization of what we can only now see as mass-murder.

---

But we slaughtered millions of innocent Germans and Japanese, and most Westerners are happy to see it as triumphalism.

The fact is that we escaped by the skin of our teeth. The same is also true of Israel, who faced overwhelming odds, yet triumphed by the hand of God.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But we slaughtered millions of innocent Germans and Japanese, and most Westerners are happy to see it as triumphalism.

The fact is that we escaped by the skin of our teeth. The same is also true of Israel, who faced overwhelming odds, yet triumphed by the hand of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Careful with that 'we'. Not everyone here is from a country that was on the Allied side in WW2.

---

Good point. I hope I haven't offended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
The children of Israel conquered Canaan because God told them to, and they took that land from its inhabitants and lived there instead. The Axis nations attacked their neighbours, and were defeated in retaliation. And US airbases aside, I don't see Germany and Japan overrun with nationals from Allied nations. There is a difference.

---

quote:

---

The children of Israel conquered Canaan because God told them to, and they took that land from its inhabitants and lived there instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Hi, Kiwimac! Good to have you on board. And a first post in Kerygmania - obviously a person of taste!

The peaceful infiltration model does do a great deal more justice to Judges, doesn't it? It's based on the sociology of seminomads living in the 19th century BC in Mesopotamia, but I think it transfers quite well to the 14th-13th centuries in Palestine. Mind you I have a soft spot for the sociological model of Gottwald, too, in which the lack of any archaeological evidence of people coming in from outside, coupled with extensive burning, and the linguistic evidence of loss of high Canaanite linguistic culture, followed after a hiatus of some 50 years by the appearance of Hebrew, signifies that an underclass (the Hapiru?) had taken over.

But the point is that even if you confine the Joshua narratives to central Palestine, they do say some pretty horrible stuff. Wider context is important, though, I agree.

---

Psyduck,

Flattery will get you everywhere! (BTW, Psyduck is one of my favourite Pokemon) Yes, I do agree that the infiltration model does do more justice to Judges but also agree that there is some extremely yucky stuff in that there book?

Grace and peace

Kiwimac
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Kiwimac

Welcome from me too. And applause for spotting Psyduck's origins. This is both for you and the Pokemon character.

<tangent>
Confession time - I'm way off the pot on the most up to date archeological understandings. So here are a couple of questions.

1. Which authors do you recommend on gradual infiltration?

2. On the basis of this theory, how historical is the exile in Baylon?

Although not a historical argument, I tend to work on the general understanding that the great "events" in Judaic history were the crucible which created the distinctive Israelite identity, rather than the notion that the search for identity was the myth-generator of Israelite identity and biblical histories. Not so much that I reckon it is all good history - I'm sure there are camp-fire stories in there - but there is probably some sort of core of core events which provide the basis for the OT.

But I'm happy to have my stupidity exposed - and certainly wouldn't mind a push in the right direction on the archeology. Don't think its worth a separate thread at this stage - it may turn out to be quite a good additional illuminator of this one.
<end tangent>
 

---

Posted by Yakov (# 10943) on :
 
I read in a few liberal Jewish commentaries that Joseph can't possibly be meant to be taken literally, because in subsequent books the Hebrews are dealing with the same people that they supposedly extinguished in Josh.

-ya.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yakov:
I read in a few liberal Jewish commentaries that Joseph can't possibly be meant to be taken literally, because in subsequent books the Hebrews are dealing with the same people that they supposedly extinguished in Josh.

---

I assume you mean that it is Joshua that can't possibly be meant to be taken literally. But I'm not aware that any entire people were extinguished in the book. Except perhaps the Anakim, and, almost, the tribe of Benjamin (in Judges 20 & 21).
 

---

Posted by Choirboi (# 9222) on :
 
I'm surprised that in a thread of this title, no one has mentioned the latest book(2005) by the retired bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong, entitled The Sins of Scripture . He addresses precisely the issues adressed in this thread. I think he does a fairly good job at addressing the biblical text from its historical context, explaining how culture affects how people understand God's presence and working in their particular age.

I suggest anyone interested in this topic have a read.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I once heard a sermon which insisted that "we have to like ALL the Bible, even the bits about genocide" (I'm quoting it from memory, but the preacher literally said that sentence).



I first read the Bible as a curious teenager (with a vague assumption that you had to think it was all literally true to be a C) and was so irritated by passages like 1 Timothy 2.11-15 that I wanted nothing more to do with it. Which has implications for the 'Just give them a Bible' school of evangelism...
 

---

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
Can someone take a crack at redeeming this one? I'm a bit more troubled by New Testament "stinkage" than by Old Testament babies-against-rocks stuff--I can buy that the latter connects to prophecies and ways of being which were "explained" and "fulfilled" in Jesus (thanks, previous poster!), but I can't get over thinking Jesus was just, well, a bit MEAN in this one:

Matthew 15:22-26 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."


Okay, it's true that she snaps right back at him and he (contritely?) does end up healing the daughter, but I have a hard time getting over feeling, um, a little pissed at the "dogs" reference.

Are we to understand that Jesus initallly DID believe it wouldn't be right for him to help the daughter, and if the woman hadn't pestered him further the girl would have died, or that the whole thing was a rhetorical flourish since Jesus knew in the beginning that the woman wouldn't give up that easily and wanted to use her faith as an example?

PS 1: sorry i couldn't figure out how to link or bold.
PS 2: those who derail this into the seemingly obligatory squabble about the nature of "demon possession" (see Purgatory and Hell) will find their inboxes cluttered with grow-a-penis spam.
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 
I think the plagues visited on Egypt during the time of Moses stink.
Not only does all Egypt suffer for something they had little part in (i.e. Pharoah's decision not to let the slaves go), but it's not Pharaoh's fault either.
Every first born son in the land dies because God hardens Pharoah's heart so God's wonders are made plainer.
(See particularly:http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=14539054 )

I can just about see that if Pharoah had just let them go (pretty unlikely IMO) the Israelites might not have realised God had saved them, etc.
But why do there have to be so many plagues?

ETA - I tried to make the link work Off to the practice thread!

[ 13. May 2006, 16:57: Message edited by: xSx ]
 

---

Posted by The Machine Elf (# 1622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Are we to understand that Jesus initallly DID believe it wouldn't be right for him to help the daughter, and if the woman hadn't pestered him further the girl would have died, or that the whole thing was a rhetorical flourish since Jesus knew in the beginning that the woman wouldn't give up that easily and wanted to use her faith as an example?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Which authors do you recommend on gradual infiltration?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Machine Elf:
she didn't have a right to healing, but acknowledged that it was a small thing compared to Jesus' authority she was asking (like a scrap of food that falls to the floor) - not her tenacity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niënna:
If I had to make one observation, I think maybe the way the Rabbis told stories and tried to makes points are definately strange to us 21st century audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I found a useful summary of the 'creep' theory in the following book:

John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edn. London: SCM, 1980.

More recently you may have heard of the "New Chronology" theory that attempts to revise the dating of events at the time and - if correct - would pull the archaeology into line with the biblical data. The argument is that the evidence is there in the archaeology, so to speak, but we have been looking at the wrong time. This theory is still hotly contested, though.

---

William Dever is more up-to-date than Bright: What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? and Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? I don't entirely agree with him, but they're pretty good summaries. He argues that whilst a minority of Israelites may have come from Egypt most were disaffected Canaanites- and draws a parallel between modern US citizens celebrating thanksgiving, whether or not their ancestors were on the Mayflower.

Rohl's "new chronology" doesn't stand up to the archaeological evidence, as he needs to move Egyptian chronology by about 300 years, which you just can't do (it's better dated than that). Prof Finklestein from Tel Aviv university has got his own "Low Chronology", but about the only archaeologists who think he's right are his grad students...

Also, although the Book of Joshua tries to give the impression that the Israelites got rid of all the non-Israelites, the book of Judges (3:5-6) gives a rather different impression:

quote:

---

The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

---

Of course, this also raises the question of how, archaeologically, you'd be able to spot the Israelites in the first place...
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sorry - I thought copying automatically included the link. Here's the charmoing bit in Question: Ps. 137

quote:

---

[7] Remember, O LORD, against the E'domites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Rase it, rase it!
Down to its foundations!"
[8] O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
[9] Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:


There is a saying, "The past is another country; they do things differently there." This episode happened in the past and in another country. If the Canaanite woman had interpreted Jesus's words in the way that's obvious to us, she would have gone away in tears. The fact that she didn't indicates to me that their culture was different.

Moo

---

Thanks--that makes a lot of sense. I still think the quote is kind of jarring and not much in keeping with the spirit of Jesus in every other word he said, but I can absolutely see the possibility that something in that exchange must have "softened" it for the original audience.

Now, can you justify Jesus' wanton attack on the defenseless fig tree? matthew 21:19
I have insanely high standards of conduct for messianic figures.
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:


There is a saying, "The past is another country; they do things differently there." This episode happened in the past and in another country. If the Canaanite woman had interpreted Jesus's words in the way that's obvious to us, she would have gone away in tears. The fact that she didn't indicates to me that their culture was different.

Moo

---

Thanks--that makes a lot of sense. I still think the quote is kind of jarring and not much in keeping with the spirit of Jesus in every other word he said, but I can absolutely see the possibility that something in that exchange must have "softened" it for the original audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Now, can you justify Jesus' wanton attack on the defenseless fig tree? matthew 21:19
I have insanely high standards of conduct for messianic figures.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 3:10 Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 12:33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.

Matthew 21:41 “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

Matthew 21:43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it."

John 15:2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

---

So the attack on the fig tree is in keeping with His frequent threats. The tree should have expected it.

I don't think, though, that He was hasty or irrational in this vendetta. Earlier He had the same problem with another fig tree, but He gave it a second chance:

quote:

---

Luke 13.6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’”

---

It is easy to conclude that He is the master who owned the tree. He gave the tree another chance.

By the end of gospels, however, it should be obvious to everyone that the tree was out of chances.
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
Freddy:
 

---

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
Thanks much, Amethyst and Freddy, for the wonderful blend of insight and chuckles I've come to love about this crazy ship.

Jesus seems equally unpleased with goats--perhaps there's a connection somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on :
 
A lot in the Bible is very dodgy. That's why a lot of people steer away from it, especially when the dodgy texts and other ones are abused.

Nearly all of the Bible is written from a viewpoint of persecution and a desire to have land. Therefore all sorts of violent things got attributed to God. And I'm not just talking about the Old Testament.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The same passage that bothers Infinite Monkey bothers me. (Gentile mother of demon-possessed child gets ignored and called a dog.) Wonder why?

A new problem just came to me today. A friend who is new to Christianity and an alcoholic told me that his one problem with Jesus was, "He was a drinker." I'd never thought of Jesus in just those terms. Are we even sure that he did drink regularly?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I'd bet just about everyone drank regularly- that or get dysentery from nasty water.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
That's pretty much what I told him, Lyda*Rose -- that wine was used, even in the children's water, as a disinfectant. It was only later that I wondered about it.

Wasn't John the Baptist an abstainer? I thought there was a sect at that time that avoided all wine, women and barbers.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Wasn't John the Baptist an abstainer? I thought there was a sect at that time that avoided all wine, women and barbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niënna:
If I had to make one observation, I think maybe the way the Rabbis told stories and tried to makes points are definately strange to us 21st century audience.

---

I think this is the heart of the problem. We see our manners and customs as the norm.

There is a saying, "The past is another country; they do things differently there." This episode happened in the past and in another country. If the Canaanite woman had interpreted Jesus's words in the way that's obvious to us, she would have gone away in tears. The fact that she didn't indicates to me that their culture was different.

Moo

---

It could be said of everything in the Bible that it happened in the past and in another country -- yet we still try to understand it.

I don't think we can conclude that if the Canaanite woman felt insulted she would have gone away in tears. Quite often, mothers put up with insults and derision from doctors and teachers for the sake of their children. This woman had been following Jesus for some time. She had been crying out to him over and over, trying to get his attention even though he was pointedly ignoring her. It would seem that she had heard that he was a true healer, perhaps she had actually witnessed healing miracles. I think most mothers would put up with almost any amount of insult and follow for miles if they truly believed the healer could cure their sick child.

Jesus' words seem fairly clear to me. He says he is ignoring her because he
"was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
and

"It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

In short, he has been ignoring her all day because she is not Jewish. If she had committed a breach of manners or custom then he would surely have mentioned that as a reason rather than state the reasons he did give.

He does grant her wish and heal her daughter because she had great faith in him. If she had given up after only an hour or so of pleading she would have gone home and her child would not have been healed -- because she wasn't Jewish.
 

---

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
I think there is some past history being dealt with here about the Cananite woman, regarding whom the cananites worshipped as God. It sounds like she is saying, yes you are lord, and I don't need much of your time, just a crumb of your power is all it takes.

There is a test of her faith, and I don't think Jesus is knocking her at all, and the lesson we learn from it is that when heaven seems quiet to keep knocking, to keep asking because we shall recieve if we don't give up.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Infinite_monkey, I once wrote a sermon about the Canaanite woman and Jesus' dealings with her. In my opinion, nothing Jesus said or did (before the very end, at least) was on the "straight." It was a test. NOT a test of the woman--he knew her type already--desperate, gutsy, good sense of humor, never-say-die. He knew that she could handle what he was about to do, especially from the perspective of the final result. No, it was a test of the DISCIPLES, who failed it totally.

Basically, on this one single occasion Jesus behaved exactly as the small-minded bigoted disciples wanted him to--ignoring the foreigner, walking past the beggar, refusing to waste any more precious time or energy on the no-hopers. He did everything they wanted. And he watched them out of the corner of his eye to see whether they had learned anything during their time with him--anything at all about compassion, love or mercy.

They SHOULD have spoken up for the woman. Even a simple, "Uh, Lord, there's a woman following you, aren't you going to stop for her like you usually do?" would have been a passing grade. But no--they were too darn pleased to see him behaving like a proper Jew and rabbi for once. They egged him on, even when he became totally outrageous by calling her a dog.

So finally he gave up on them, turned to the woman, and showed his true face of love and mercy. He reverted to type. How disappointed the disciples must have been! But how much more disappointed Jesus must have been in them.

And the woman? Perhaps it WAS hard on her to have to wait a few extra minutes for the happy ending. But I doubt she even thought of that in the end. And in a very real sense, Jesus honored her and her great faith by using her as a teaching partner in his effort to educate the disciples. I think she would have felt it was worth it in view of his purpose. What an honor--to know that God thinks you are tough enough to stand a little adversity in order to work in partnership with him to help others.

Though I doubt the disciples saw it that way.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Thank you Lamb Chopped! You've been an instrument of prayer for me. I've been wrestling with that one for the past three days and nights.

I'm sure you're right. If you put, even the slightest hint of a question into the reading of verses 24 and 26 then it's even more obvious that Jesus is teaching a lesson.
 

---

Posted by JimS (# 10766) on :
 
Surely the natural way to read this passage is that it shows Jesus learning about his mission. He is focused on his role as the suffering servant, there to redeem the Jews and in this passage he realises that his ministry is to gentiles as well.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
JimS, I tried on that view for a bit the other night but finally rejected it, because I thought that things I'd read over the years from the more Learned Shipmates, tended toward the belief that Jesus understood his own mission very well.

However, since I am decidedly not one of the LS -- I could have that wrong.

[ 23. May 2006, 11:02: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight
If she had committed a breach of manners or custom then he would surely have mentioned that as a reason rather than state the reasons he did give.

---

quote:

---

Just to add another bit to the Canaanite woman’s story: David H. Stern, in his ‘Jewish New Testament Commentary’ has some interesting comments on this, including pointing out that the word used by the woman translates as ‘little dogs’ or ‘pet dogs’, being fed under the table. He also says that Jesus’s words are in effect ‘a straightforward Middle-Eastern style friendly joke’ (bit complicated to go into here, but it sounds reasonable as he explains it).

I think it is right that we project our own assumptions and reactions on the past, as Moo has said. This is why I find commentaries such as Stern’s so fascinating, as he illuminates stories and actions which we sometimes fail to understand, because our culture is not that of Jews living in 1st century Judea.

---

No way can I see Jesus's words as "a straightforward Middle-Eastern style friendly joke", but if someone who knows the culture says so, I'll take his word for it. (I trust David Stern's accuracy.)

Moo
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
My Harper Collins study Bible says: "lit. small dogs, puppies or house dogs, but still a very uncomplimentary term for Gentiles."

I think it really doesn't matter whether the dogs were pets or strays and if Jesus had been making jokes about the inferiority of Gentiles it makes the passage even worse. Just imagine if the "pets" were house slaves to the whites and you'll see how offensive the passage might seem to some people. Likewise, the idea that Jesus was prissily ignoring her because her voice was strident, was also making the passage seem worse to me.

I'm sorry to keep going on about this, Moo, but Lamb Chopped's version is the only one I can entertain and not have my faith shaken a bit.
 

---

Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
Lamb Chopped. I think I borrowed that sermon last year!

Jeff
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Gosh,
 

---

Posted by PaxChristi (# 11493) on :
 
Being a newbie here, I'm reluctant (but not sufficiently to keep me from posting this) to risk violating the integrity of the thread here, but I have a take on the whole "it stinks" thing.

I think it's awfully important for those of us who cringe at the word "inerrant" to be able to talk about Scriptural authority with those for whom that word is important. I have come to a place that gives equal authority to all the texts of Scripture, seeing them all as equally revelatory.

Since they are all revelatory, they are all inspired and intended, and in some sense, "inerrant." Now, what they reveal is not always God. In many cases, what they reveal is my penchant for creating God in my violent self-image, but this is also God's intent. To show me myself. How I separate the two is by measuring the texts against Jesus. ("Philip, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father...)

This means I use Jesus as a "lens" by which I read the texts, both his life and his own manner of reading Scripture. This way of reading is supported by the Biblical text itself. Second Corinthians 3 bears this out.

This permits me to speak to "inerrantists" in a way that permits, even encourages conversation, and it still preserves the reality that much of what I read up to and including Malachi is not about God.

Hope this isn't out of place here.

Jeff
 

---

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Infinite_monkey, I once wrote a sermon about the Canaanite woman and Jesus' dealings with her. In my opinion, nothing Jesus said or did (before the very end, at least) was on the "straight." It was a test. NOT a test of the woman--he knew her type already--desperate, gutsy, good sense of humor, never-say-die. He knew that she could handle what he was about to do, especially from the perspective of the final result. No, it was a test of the DISCIPLES, who failed it totally.

---

Thanks, Lamb Chopped--that's a good way to look at it.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Welcome aboard PaxChristi: We have a special board on the ship for the more regular/thorny issues. Innerancy is one of them. The thread dealing with this issue is here.

Pyx_e, Kerygmania Host.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
{bump}
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Thanks for bumping. I think I may find Pax Christi's comments useful wandering around the ship as well as round the bible. I'd always thought of Dead Horses dismissively - the issues there aren't dead at all, however smelly some of the older arguments may be getting. How about a new thread: This is in Dead Horses, but it doesn't stink!

[ 06. January 2007, 08:28: Message edited by: pimple ]
 

---

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I recently had the opportunity to read the Book of Hosea, and I was struck by some of the misogynistic images/language in it. That isn't the tone of the whole thing, of course -- you've got God cast as the crazy Lover absolutely besotted by love for Israel, the Bad Girl -- but I can see where parts of it would be very troubling to, say, a woman who has been the victim of domestic abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by justlooking:
Hosea is using his personal experiences to show God as a wronged husband - heartbroken, but still loving and always willing to forgive and take the unfaithful wife(Israel) back. It shows that we can abandon God but God will never abandon us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I always forget which prophet it was who was told by God to lie on one side for a very long time, then lie on the other side for a very long time.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Hosea is not just using his own experience to show what the relationship between God and Israel is. At God's behest he set himself up for experiences that would reflect this relationship.

This kind of "enactment" is done by other OT prophets also.

---

quote:

---

The prophets represented their church's condition relative to its teachings from the Word and its life according to them, as the following stories from the Word make clear:

• Isaiah the prophet was commanded to take the sackcloth off below his waist and the sandals off his feet and go naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a wonder (Isaiah 20:2, 3).
• Ezekiel the prophet was commanded to represent the state of the church by making travel bags, moving to another place before the eyes of the children of Israel, taking out his bags from time to time, going out in the evening through a hole in the wall, and covering his face so he could not see the ground. In this way he would be a wonder to the house of Israel. He was told to say, "Behold, I am your wonder. As I have done, so it will be for you" (Ezekiel 12:3-7, 11).
• Hosea the prophet was commanded to represent the church's condition by marrying a promiscuous partner, which he did. She bore him three sons, one of whom he called Jezreel, the second No Mercy, and the third Not My People. At another point he was commanded to go love a woman who already had a lover and who was committing adultery, and buy her for himself (Hosea 1:2-9; 3:1, 2).
• One prophet was commanded to put ashes over his eyes and let himself be beaten and whipped (1 Kings 20:35, 38).
• Ezekiel the prophet was commanded to represent the condition of the church by taking a brick and sculpting Jerusalem on it, laying siege to it, building a rampart and a mound against it, putting an iron frying pan between himself and the "city," and sleeping on his left side and then on his right side. He also had to take wheat, barley, lentils, millet, and spelt and make bread out of them. He also had to make a cake of barley with human excrement; but because he begged not to have to do that, he was allowed to make it with cow dung instead.

[2] By these actions the prophet Ezekiel carried the injustices done by the house of Israel and the house of Judah; but he did not take away those injustices or atone for them, he only represented them and made them visible.

The same thing is meant by the statement about the Lord that says, "He bore our diseases, he carried our pains. Jehovah put on him the injustices committed by us all. Through his knowledge he justified many as he himself carried their injustices" (Isaiah 53:4, 6, 11).

From all this it is clear that "bearing iniquities" or "carrying injustices" does not mean taking them away; it means representing the desecration of the Word's truth. (True Christianity 130)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenyt:
I'm not sure whether this really requires a separate thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I always forget which prophet it was who was told by God to lie on one side for a very long time, then lie on the other side for a very long time.

---

That would be me when asleep, Moo.

Either that, or Ezekiel.

---

quote:

---

God: Cook on a fire of your own poo

Ezekiel: Erm, isn't that a bit, you know, unclean? I know you're quite hot on the whole clean/unclean thing, isn't there another option?

God: OK. Special favour, just for you. You can cook on cow dung instead. Now don't say I never give you anything!

(Ezekiel 4:12-15, New Gumby Version)

---

Which is actually one of my favourite passages, just because it's so daft, but I can seamlessly link it to the OP by mentioning the smell (or stink) it would have caused.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenyt:
for example church leaders often say that creationism isn't true

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenyt:
There are many passages and issues in the Bible which we are often taught to ignore these days, for example church leaders often say that creationism isn't true, and that we should also ignore Paul's prohibition of women preachers in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. My question is essentially how far can we ignore certain passages of the Bible without simply picking and mixing what we choose to believe. I'm really primarily interested in what the NT says on certain issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume you mean that it is Joshua that can't possibly be meant to be taken literally. But I'm not aware that any entire people were extinguished in the book. Except perhaps the Anakim, and, almost, the tribe of Benjamin (in Judges 20 & 21).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A classical bit of Psyduck questioning. Can I provoke you a bit more? We'll need to avoid a Purg dimension and also a Dead Horse, but there is a really important general issue of Biblical Interpretation here. Here's the deep issue.

1. Is it possible to hold to the principle that scripture is authoritative and inspired (that's not the same as inerrant) and yet be open to the possibility that some stuff in the Bible stinks!

My personal answer to that is "yes". There are plenty of "stinky bits" in the OT for example, whose only real value today can be that they serve as an example of how not to think and behave. Here is a "charming" extract from Psalm 137.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears
Thats a good point - for example the Psalmists utter calls for destruction upon his enemies - it could be understood that God wanted it to be there, but that it was there as an example of how NOT to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I recently had the opportunity to read the Book of Hosea, and I was struck by some of the misogynistic images/language in it. That isn't the tone of the whole thing, of course -- you've got God cast as the crazy Lover absolutely besotted by love for Israel, the Bad Girl -- but I can see where parts of it would be very troubling to, say, a woman who has been the victim of domestic abuse.

---

Hey, I saw your blogspot. You seem like a cool person. I just had to tell you that. I send warm wishes your way! Perhaps we can send emails?

 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
{bump}
 

---

Posted by tallmaninthecnr (# 15429) on :
 
19 But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them,

Reading Samuel last night and came to this passage, and maybe it was the mood I was in but it made me stop and close my bible and switch the light out and lie there wondering how do I ever make sense of all this? How do I pass over verses like this by appealing to the argument about what God is 'really' like a revealed by Jesus in the NT, it just seems a poor argument. I know there are other verses that cause just as much distress in the OT but this was my one for the day.
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Shipmates, there are crew members on 'Divine Purpose in the Old Testament' defending God's command to commit genocide against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). I suggest you all take a look if you haven't already.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Guilty as charged. We think it was staged, a setup.

16 "But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. Exodus 9

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." Romans 9

The Bible uses unfortunate choice in words: fear God, glorify God, proclaim His name, give Him His dues, honour. What doesn't seem to get across is the idea that we are family, and we need to include Him in our plans, so that lost family members know where "home" is.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
{bump}
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
[tangent]We don't need no stinkin' no-post-in-two-weeks-and-you're-out rule. This is Kerygmania, baby! We've got millennium on our side![/tangent]
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
[tangent]We don't need no stinkin' no-post-in-two-weeks-and-you're-out rule. This is Kerygmania, baby! We've got millennium on our side![/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
I like the idea of "ancestral communal agreement" as a preservative/adhesive. I'm sure the aboriginal peoples do too. Not to mention the Chinese (because that's probably against the 10C).

It's not that odd bits stink and need cutting out. They are very useful. They should be preserved forever in formaldehyde, as examples of what we all*, God help us, are capable of.

* "All" in the generic, not an individual, sense. My wife is not capable of genocide. I am incapable of finding the delete button when I need it most. But between us, and with a few angry mates....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I thought I read an Episcopalian boasting "we read the WHOLE Bible" but now I can't find the reference.

---

I would be very surprised if this were true, although I can imagine some fanboy saying it. Why would any lectionary send folks through all those "begats," or through all that priestly instruction on what to sacrifice when, or how to build a tabernacle and what to furnish it with?

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
S'OK, if Anglicans base their authority on Scripture, Tradition and Reason, they only have to read 1/3 of the whole Bible.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I thought I read an Episcopalian boasting "we read the WHOLE Bible" but now I can't find the reference.

---

I would be very surprised if this were true, although I can imagine some fanboy saying it. Why would any lectionary send folks through all those "begats," or through all that priestly instruction on what to sacrifice when, or how to build a tabernacle and what to furnish it with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
I like the idea of "ancestral communal agreement" as a preservative/adhesive. I'm sure the aboriginal peoples do too. Not to mention the Chinese (because that's probably against the 10C).

It's not that odd bits stink and need cutting out. They are very useful. They should be preserved forever in formaldehyde, as examples of what we all*, God help us, are capable of.

* "All" in the generic, not an individual, sense. My wife is not capable of genocide. I am incapable of finding the delete button when I need it most. But between us, and with a few angry mates....

---

Yes, I've never been a great fan of the arguments proposed in favour of liberalism. To my kind the biblical writers nailed the human condition on the head by pointing out that we are all fundamentally flawed and would jump a queue if we thought we could get away with it. Or riot on nice summer evenings when there's nothing worth watching on TV. Or commit genocide when the husband's not looking...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
How closely acquainted with Mark were the early readers of Luke? Would they have noticed the differences, as well as the similarities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Showing up the potential is quite different from condoning such actions.

Especially in the name of God.

Long live liberalism.

---

quote:

---

Remember, O LORD, against the E'domites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, "Rase it, rase it!
Down to its foundations!"
[8] O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
[9] Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The dead end that classic liberalism finds itself in, though, is that in order to find a publicly justifiable ground upon which to judge the action (not condoning it), it has to deny the potential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

In other words, it cannot grant the thesis that humans are fundamentally flawed without also condoning the action. The action follows from the nature and if a human, being free from ulterior constraints (God, Church, Academy, State, or whatever), has a flawed nature then that human has no valid guiding light to direct it away from flawed actions – and ultimately from actions contrary to human life. It follows that philosophically, if liberalism is to avoid that particular dead end, it needs to disavow the fundamentally flawed nature of humanity and assume that humans are fundamentally good. This permits the concept that humans are capable of ultimate good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seraphim:
The little ones in the passage are understood to be unwholesome, evil thoughts newly seeded in us by the enemy. We are to mercilessly cast them down before they grow to have any strength over us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally, my position is that humans are capable of both great good and great evil and everything in between.

I certainly go for a canonical textual interpretation: it's my favorite!

Canonically, genocide doesn't fit with Jesus' command to love your enemies.

The "liberal" position in such instances is to say it's about human moral progression.

"We know better now Jesus has come and told us the right stuff".

Right or wrong, it's a viable position that takes the entire bible seriously.

---

quote:

---

The biblical record shows that God willed genocide in the OT, continued to will it through Jesus, and has a plan to complete the act of genocide in the future. Genocide is part of God's loving nature.

---

quote:

---

I would argue that the words we use in the (English) translation process can skew our interpretation. Two words in particular have done this: Genocide and Love. Neither are used in the bible in the way too often used and assumed by Christians today. In fact, I would say that we have allowed our presuppositions to rule our reading. There isn't time here to go into detail (this post is already appallingly long), but I am more than happy to pick the question up if anyone is interested. Essentially, however, the argument is this: there is no Genocide in the bible. The concept is not the same as the Hebrew term used in the passages often invoked – herem – which is a covenant-based concept and needs to be understood as such. Similarly with 'Love.' The English denotation no longer maps to the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek NT equivalents. What we do have is a theme running throughout the bible (validated by Jesus) that herem is a practice invoked and retained by God and without which his creation can not have 'Love.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd like to read what you have to say about this, if you think you have the time to start a thread on it. I think the subject and some of its tangents are biggies in the discussion of the "stinky stuff".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seraphim:
The little ones in the passage are understood to be unwholesome, evil thoughts newly seeded in us by the enemy. We are to mercilessly cast them down before they grow to have any strength over us.

---

That is also how we explain it in the New Church.

---

quote:

---

I've read that various saints and fathers did not read this passage something to be applied literally , but rather regarded the Amalekites as representative of all those forces of evil that attempt to remove us from the path of faith and righteousness in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
It certainly is the case that one of the tenets of classic liberalism, which informs and provides the backing for current liberalism, is that human nature has been improving over time and therefore we do indeed know better now than we did formerly. I do question that principle, because I think the evidence is lacking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
In fact, the only thing I think we can say is that we make better tools over time (building on what went before), but that human nature has remained the same over time. We are no different in this respect to our forebears. That seems to be the only conclusion we can draw from the available evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

Back to genocide.

I would argue that the words we use in the (English) translation process can skew our interpretation. Two words in particular have done this: Genocide and Love. Neither are used in the bible in the way too often used and assumed by Christians today. In fact, I would say that we have allowed our presuppositions to rule our reading. There isn't time here to go into detail (this post is already appallingly long), but I am more than happy to pick the question up if anyone is interested. Essentially, however, the argument is this: there is no Genocide in the bible. The concept is not the same as the Hebrew term used in the passages often invoked – herem – which is a covenant-based concept and needs to be understood as such. Similarly with 'Love.' The English denotation no longer maps to the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek NT equivalents. What we do have is a theme running throughout the bible (validated by Jesus) that herem is a practice invoked and retained by God and without which his creation can not have 'Love.'

---

Exterminating the enemy is love?

Can't do it canonically. You have to pick either or.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Evensong

Later in the weekend I will kick start a new thread on the subject of genocide, so I won't repeat yards of material on that here - save to say that in answer to your last question: Yes! Though as always the terms need defining. My conclusion from going through the biblical material and the cultural settings informing that material is that this is the canonical view.

On your other thoughts, I think the evidence from history is that humans have not improved their natures and behaviours. Babylonian society and laws have much to offer when compared with, say, Hitler's Germany, despite the vast passage of time between the two. We may not burn people at stakes, but neither did the Babylonians. I think it is also arguable that Greek society reflected a more 'advanced' nature than that of Rome or Pol Pot. So the rather optimistic view of Georg Hegel that we were advancing to the climax of man's achievements does not really stack up. In his defence, though, he couldn't have predicted two world wars from the comfort of his native Prussia.

When Hannah Arendt published her Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, she showed how ordinary humans - jolly next door neighbours in any other context - can perform acts we would designate evil. The fact that ordinary people can do 'evil' in our age was highlighted further by Milgram's experiments on individuals who were told to administer electric shocks to other participants.

It all goes to show that human nature has not changes with time. The best we can say on the evidence is that good times come in cycles. We are more or less better off at any given time in history, but factors other than 'progress' are in play here. Scarcity of resources plays a part, for example. We happen to live in a comfortable society that can afford rights. Not all current societies can afford that luxury. At a future date we may no longer afford them.

I don't agree either that we look after people in a better way nowadays. Pre-Christian societies had very well organised hierarchical social support mechanisms. Our 'enlightened' concept of parking our elderly relatives in a home away from the family would never have been acceptable, for example.

There's also a logical break, too, I think with the idea that better tools make better lives. They may improve our comfort, but that is not the same thing as improving our nature. It could be argued that more comfort simply breeds more greed. Additionally we are improving the comfort only for some - but marginalising the majority in the process.

So I question this received wisdom of classic liberalism. It follows that I have also to question those approaches to biblical interpretation that presuppose such a philosophical grounding. It boils down, I think, to a need to bellow "Where's the evidence?!!" when reading commentaries that assume a progress in human nature throughout biblical history.
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I was beginning to get to grips with some of this when the word herem appeared a couple of times and I was lost. It's obviously understood by the cognoscenti but I'd be awfully grateful if you could give a couple of examples of its use. Sorry to hold up the argument.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Absolutely right pimple – it's far too easy to get carried away and cut corners by using technical jargon in place of explanation. My apologies.

The Hebrews have a verb, transliterated Haram, with a related noun Herem. It appears (in both forms) around 84 times in the Jewish Scripture. There isn't one English word or phrase that does justice in translation of this Hebrew word set. The English versions go with something along the lines of “totally destroy,” “utterly destroy,” “devote,” “ban,” “exterminate,” “consecrated.” None of these are really adequate in imagining the context of the term. It is linked elsewhere in the bible and in related near eastern texts with a solemn judicial-religious process of setting something aside for the ownership of a particular person or deity. For example, a person who wished to become a priest could do just that, but if he wished to make this a life-long commitment he would go through the vows associated with herem so that everyone would know (including himself!) that he could no longer engage in any other activity. He could not take up another occupation. Similarly, a field donated to the temple under herem rules could never again be sold or bought. It belonged forever to the temple. This process was by no means limited to Israel; it was part and parcel of near eastern processes – albeit not a common occurrence. The Moabite Stone makes reference to an attack on Israel under these rules, 'devoting' Israel to Moab's deity. In medieval Judaism the term was applied to the process for putting someone out of the community and then shunning them (hence the translation sometimes used, “Ban” - although this is somewhat anachronistic). A forerunner to this 'Ban' process makes a biblical appearance (same verb used) after the Babylonian war (Ezra 10:8) and the concept may lie behind Paul's enigmatic “hand this man over to satan” statement (1 Corinthians 5:5), where Paul enacts a judicial process – announces judgement, convicts, and sentences a person who was disrupting the community by his lifestyle. Sentence was to be carried out in a formal setting; very heremish. Even in modern times we had the example of the Harem, the Turkish sacrosanct area for women who formally belonged to a ruler and who could not, therefore, be given to any other man. The use of the herem in war was a minority event, but was surrounded with formality, declarations, warnings, etc. It was not a surprise to the enemy; they were made very aware of the consequences of their rebellion and outcome if they did not cease. In 1 Samuel, Amalek is placed under this herem and is then heremed (for want of a better word) by the sword. 'Judicial execution' might be the appropriate phrase here.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Evensong

Later in the weekend I will kick start a new thread on the subject of genocide, so I won't repeat yards of material on that here - save to say that in answer to your last question: Yes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

On your other thoughts, I think the evidence from history is that humans have not improved their natures and behaviours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
The fact that ordinary people can do 'evil' in our age was highlighted further by Milgram's experiments on individuals who were told to administer electric shocks to other participants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

It all goes to show that human nature has not changes with time. The best we can say on the evidence is that good times come in cycles. We are more or less better off at any given time in history, but factors other than 'progress' are in play here. Scarcity of resources plays a part, for example. We happen to live in a comfortable society that can afford rights. Not all current societies can afford that luxury. At a future date we may no longer afford them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

I don't agree either that we look after people in a better way nowadays. Pre-Christian societies had very well organised hierarchical social support mechanisms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

There's also a logical break, too, I think with the idea that better tools make better lives. They may improve our comfort, but that is not the same thing as improving our nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

So I question this received wisdom of classic liberalism. It follows that I have also to question those approaches to biblical interpretation that presuppose such a philosophical grounding. It boils down, I think, to a need to bellow "Where's the evidence?!!" when reading commentaries that assume a progress in human nature throughout biblical history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
But if you can justify Hitler's genocide of the Jews, then you're seriously deluded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
...if you can justify Hitler's genocide of the Jews, then you're seriously deluded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I've just realised that statement is purely dependent on what you mean by "improvement".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If there is no progress in human nature and society, then Christianity is a load of bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:

And you are perfectly right to ask the question as to whether or not I am a Christian (I assume it wasn't rhetorical?!). To make it clear to all: Yes, I am a card-carrying Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You have a card?.

That's no fair. I don't have a card.

Bloody slack Anglicans don't give out cards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You have a card?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I know it's a secondary issue to your point of genocide, but for me it's something I've been wondering about alot recently so my apologies if I'm getting off your thought tracks. It bothered me so much I started a Purg thread on it recently. Like you, I was looking for evidence.

The other issue that comes up is that if you don't believe human nature has changed over time, then you can't go for the idea of theosis. That we become sanctified (in our nature) by Christ becoming man. God became man so man could become God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, progressive revelation anyone?

---

Is that your answer for everything Martin? Seems to crop up a lot in your posts across many threads these days

[ 08. December 2013, 19:12: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aye Jay Dee. It's my present groove. I catch up 10 years after everyone else, although nobody has done it or is doing it as well as Rob Bell currently, on his FaceBook page.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
I do enjoy his writing too. And your posts when I can understand them that is
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
As this thread has a long and venerable history in Kerygmania (despite no-one having found another text that stinks that they'd like to comment on since Dec. 2013), I am bumping it to the front page ahead of the coming Oblivionation. If this sparks further discussion of Bible texts that stink, that would be a bonus.

Trudy, Scrumptious Kerygmania Host
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Talk about a bumpy ride!

I think what stinks most in the bible, time and time again, is the unforgiveable misuse of power and the ascription of human cruelty to divine justice. Some of you will know what's coming next.

Ananias drops dead (Act 5). Hours later, his wife turns up. Peter tricks her into repeating Ananias's "unholy, unforgiveable lie" then jumps in with the killer line:

"The men are at the door who buried your husband, and they will carry you out."

How long have those men been at the door? Did it take them three hours to bury Ananias? Did they just happen to stay for a cup of tea or two afterwards? What were the instructions they got from Peter - "Stick around chaps, I might have a bit of gardening for you to do later..." ?

I await your filthy stinking justifications of this cowardly bully's deeds ands words!
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am sure this has been mentioned upthread, because it is a classic: Jesus's confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman who had a sick daughter. She asks him to heal her. He says, "Should dogs get fed before the children of the house?"
=Nasty.= Reams and reams of argument (He was smiling when he said it! She was a whore! He can see the future and knew that in the next sentence he would give in! The kid wasn't really sick! He had to make a gesture to all the listening Jews before healing! and so on) does not change the nastiness of the retort.
 

---

Posted by riotgrrrl (# 18437) on :
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned so far, but good old Deuteronomy 2.28-9

quote:

---

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The law (with parallel passages) gives a rape victim the right either to marry the rapist regardless of his wishes in the matter, and he is not allowed to ever divorce her, either (unlike basically every other marriage in Israel). This guarantees her the social and financial support of marriage. The rapist gets no say at all, nil, zilch, nada. Which is still better than he deserves.

If she chooses NOT to marry the asshole, he is forced to pay reparations to her birth family, which can be used for her support in case she never marries. Her father has the deciding vote on which of the two happens, which was probably thrown in to prevent unapproved suitors from trying to force marriage through rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's a parallel expanded passage which goes into the details I mentioned. I'll have to dig it up later, I'm late for an appointment!

---

quote:

---

Exodus 22:16-17


16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

---

The difference here of course is that we're talking seduction, not rape--and yet I wonder if the two wouldn't have been conflated in practice just as I apparently did in memory. It's not that easy to draw a line between seduction and rape when the only two people who were there have vested interests in telling the story (and may tell it differently from one another, too).

Going strictly by the letter of the written passages we've looked at, in both cases the man is liable for the damage done to the girl's future. A rapist must make reparations through marriage--he gets no choice in the matter; it looks like a seducer is in the same boat, though it's more implied than stated.

Nothing is said in either passage about compelling the girl or her family; both passages are all about male responsibility to make reparations. In one case (seduction) the law deals explicitly with the question of "What if the girl's family doesn't WANT the marriage?" and concludes that financial damages must be paid. In the other case (rape) this question doesn't come up at all, and we'll have to decide it based on our own understanding of the Law as a whole.

Because the two passages are so very similar, and because of the trouble proving rape vs. seduction in the situation outlined, I incline very strongly to think that the same exception was granted. I also incline to it because otherwise every girl in love with a ne'er-do-well would claim rape to force Dad's approval to their marriage--and every asshole intent on marrying into a rich and powerful family would be able to do it legally by simply raping a daughter. The whole tenor of the Law is to prevent these kinds of abuses. Therefore I think the unwilling father clause applied to cases of rape as well.

The clause about "he can never divorce her" is also unique, in this case to the rape scenario. Its intent is clearly to protect the woman. The seduction scenario says nothing either way, and again, we must decide that one based on our overall understanding of the Law.

I rather suspect that divorce WAS a possibility in cases of generally-admitted seduction, for two reasons. First of all, such a divorce wasn't likely to happen immediately after the wedding, as the couple is obviously already, er, inclined to be together. So she's not at risk of being dumped and abandoned immediately the wedding is celebrated. And second, because the Law does treat women as moral, thinking, responsible human beings, and in the case of seduction, she bears some responsibility. So the extra safeguard given to a rapist's victim probably does not apply to her, and she must take her chances with the general population of married men and women.

I hope that all makes some sense.

[ 10. July 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Thank you, Lamb Chopped. I was looking through Leviticus and Numbers for the parallel section. It didn't occur to me that it would be as far back as Exodus.

I agree that the rape situation should have allowed for the victim's father to decline the marriage, pretty much for the same reasons you gave. It may well have been an understood part of the law that the forced marriage portion could be waived by the party that was intended to benefit from it. That sort of inherently understood meaning wouldn't be completely unheard of in the law. To give a modern example, technically the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel AND unusual" punishment...but that is not interpreted as meaning that cruel punishment is okay just as long as it isn't unusual. The understood meaning of phrases is not necessarily the literal meaning of phrases.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Right. One difficulty that sometimes crops up is that we (for values of many modern nations, notably our shared country, the US!) have a hermeneutic we use to understand laws which is basically "If you didn't spell it out in detail using precise language and even correct freaking punctuation, we will drive a truck through the resulting loopholes singing "NYAH nyah nyah NYAH!"

While the more usual hermeneutic (used of ordinary speech and also of the Bible) is "Duh, you idiot, you should know me better than to take one isolated statement and say I meant X when everything else I've ever done and said is not-X."

And sometimes people will take the modern legal hermeneutic and apply it to Scripture, with disastrous results...

[ 10. July 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jesus's confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman who had a sick daughter. She asks him to heal her. He says, "Should dogs get fed before the children of the house?"

---

As a general comment with all these, you have to be careful about reading 21st Century sensitivities into a 1st century culture.

From memory, the word that Jesus uses for 'dog' is not a harsh 'stray dog', but rather a softer 'domesticated dog'. Hence the woman's comeback that the dog gets to eat the scraps!
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
There's also the fact that written text doesn't always convey certain emotions well, such as humor or teasing. We can only go by the woman's reaction, since she was there--and she does not show disgust, anger, or anything else you'd expect in response to a real racist slur. Similarly, Jesus himself does not "double down" on the apparent racism once she responds, though that's the usual behavior of someone who meant to be nasty.

I'm not trying to explain it away. But the reaction of the alleged "target" must be taken into account, as well as the general character and subsequent behavior of the alleged racist.

A modern example would be a kid from my church who yells out to another kid, "Yo, nigga, whatcha doin'?" You'd have to see the second kid's response to know whether the first one deserves a sharp reprimand or not. (and no, at my church you can't tell just by looking at kid no. 1's skin color, things are more complex than that.)
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
**bump**
(because you never know when this thread will come in handy)
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Like when I want to come back with "Yo, Lamb chopped!"
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yo, dude.
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
sooooooo many stinkers, what do folks think of Jeremy 19: And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend.

Jeremiah 19: 1-9

[Added Bible reference for context. Mamacita, Host]

[ 12. January 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
or possibly psalm 58, with its not so subtle hints to abortion

Break the teeth in their mouths, O God;
Lord, tear out the fangs of those lions!
Let them vanish like water that flows away;
when they draw the bow, let their arrows fall short.
May they be like a slug that melts away as it moves along,
like a stillborn child that never sees the sun.

Psalm 58
[Added Bible reference for context. Mamacita, Host]

[ 12. January 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
I think the Psalm is referring to miscarriage (the NRSV translates it as "untimely birth") or stillbirth, both of which would have been common in that time and place. The context of the psalm is a prayer for vengeance. The Psalmist is using a miscarried fetus as one of several analogies for God bringing judgment by causing weakness and death.

ETA: Still a nasty business, though, those cursing psalms.

[ 12. January 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Hedgehog

quote:

---

To give a modern example, technically the U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel AND unusual" punishment...but that is not interpreted as meaning that cruel punishment is okay just as long as it isn't unusual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Just a thought - there is good precedent for leaving out verses that 'stink' - se tomorrow's gospel where Jesus nearly gets lynched for quoting Isaiah selectively. He leaves out vengeance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Just a thought - there is good precedent for leaving out verses that 'stink' - se tomorrow's gospel where Jesus nearly gets lynched for quoting Isaiah selectively. He leaves out vengeance.

---

I think that episode does work as an example of this thread, but not quite in the way leo suggests. Jesus doesn't get nearly lynched for anything particularly to do with the Isaiah passage he quotes, or even his claiming to have fulfilled it - in fact, Luke says they "spoke well" of him at that point.

Where that passage is an example of "This is in the Bible - but it stinks!" by the crowd is when Jesus goes on to point to the stories of Elijah and Elisha as examples of when Isaiah's words are fulfilled among the Gentiles and not Israel and heavily implies that it might happen again with him. That's when they take offence and try to kill him...

---

quote:

---

"2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."

---

quote:

---

12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired worker he has served you six years. So the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do."

---

quote:

---

This is yet another case of God knowing exactly how shitty we are to one another, and attempting to do damage control rather than shooting for the moon and getting nothing at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A problem right off,it fails to include the rest of the cultures in the world, therefore seem to be cool with slavery for everyone else. (not to mention the children of Ham rubbish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

This is yet another case of God knowing exactly how shitty we are to one another, and attempting to do damage control rather than shooting for the moon and getting nothing at all.

---

God has not one iota of an issue laying down the law, telling people to do things against their desire in other places in the bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A problem right off,it fails to include the rest of the cultures in the world, therefore seem to be cool with slavery for everyone else. (not to mention the children of Ham rubbish

---

Exodus is a book written for the Israelites about the Israelites. The passage you cited, like much of the Torah, was setting down laws governing this particular people. I wouldn't say that its omission of other cultures of the world was a matter of being cool (or not being cool) with anyone else practicing slavery. It was writing laws for Israel, not the rest of the world.

This is not to disregard the great, terrible, mischief that humans, in the centuries since Exodus was written, have justified based on such texts. But that's a different matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In other words; simple, strong prohibitions first.
Again, starting form the very first, God has no problem with draconian edicts, why does he get so chary of them here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
This is probably another instance where an English word used in translation fails to do justice to the original concept. Like the English words "love" and "soul", perhaps "slave" should be removed from bibles and another term introduced. Something that better represents the semantic domain covered by the Hebrew term in its context. "Slave" smuggles too many more modern presuppositions into the frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
But in what sense does the description in Ex. 21 overlap with the concept of 'slave' in English?

---

quote:

---

If you acquire [the verb is not limited to the English word 'buy'] a Hebrew [a subject from the community] worker [the noun covers range of meaning associated with service], he is to work for [be subject to] you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything [i.e. he is a debt subject, not something else – e.g., war booty].

If he came in [became one of the 'Father's House, protected by the one in charge] by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him.

If his 'Father' gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her 'Father', and he will go out by himself.

But if the subject should declare, ‘I wish to continue owing loyalty and allegiance to my 'Father', my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his 'Father' must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his 'Father' will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall work for him forever.

If a man sells his daughter as a female worker, she will not go out as the male workers do. If she does not please her new 'Father', who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. If he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her according to the customary rights of daughters. If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, first you have an incorrect view of what slavery is.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0