These chapters of the Old Testament are where the modern scriptures add to our understanding of the scriptures. One thing that is added is that Abram was nearly offered as a sacrifice himself, by his father. This adds a lot of poignancy to when Abraham is later commanded to offer Isaac.
The BKC points out something that I've never had pointed out before. Abram entering and leaving Egypt is similar to the Israelites experience. They both enter because of a famine, Egypt is plagued because they are there, and they leave the land rich. The BKC says that this probably gave the Israelites comfort while they were going through they're experience. I doubt it, but it is interesting the way that it is linked.
The modern scriptures clear up the fact that Abram told the Egyptians that Sarai was his sister, because he was commanded to do so by the Lord. Of course this doesn't really clear everything up because the question then becomes why the Lord told Abram to lie. Of course in the scriptures it explains that it isn't really a lie. I just recently read a book recently by Hugh Nibley called "Abraham in Egypt" and in that book there are some articles that talk about Jewish traditions that talk about how this event was actually a test for Sarai to see if she would remain true to the Lord as Abraham later remained true to the Lord in all situations. Since the BKC doesn't take advantage of modern scripture they just say that Abram lies on his own, if it is a lie. The Lord still protects Abram, but he's still a liar according to the BKC.
Gen 13 shows and the BKC really emphasizes it that Abram gave Lot the choice of land, and Lot took the worldly route. This shows that we should rely on the blessings of the Lord on not on the way the world chooses. I wonder how the story would have ended if the Lot and chosen not go to valley. Could Abram have withstood the draw of the world? I think that he could have, but the point is that Abram was willing to do whatever the Lord asked of him, or he was willing to serve the Lord no matter what the world gave him.
The BKC gives a lot of background for the war that happened in Gen 14. Because of that I was pretty much amazed that Abram had 318 "trained men". It's amazing how many of the great men of the scriptures seem to also to be military men, even though you have to read carefully sometimes to see it. Back then keeping a "trained man" was no mean feat. It's not like you could be farming one minute and then pick up a rifle and protect your homestead as modern militias do. That's pretty much how it's been since the Minute Men of the American Revolution. Back then war took a lot of training to be good at it and that's all you did was train for war, so keeping 318 trained men says a lot about Abram.
After Abram returns from the war with Lot and the spoils of war he meets two kings, Melchizedek and the King of Sodom. The BKC calls Melchizedek a fascinating figure. Because of modern scripture the LDS know a lot more about Melchizedek, especially why Jesus is called a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of which I'll write more about later.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Gen 7-11
Reading the BKC is certainly a good experience. It's helping me to read the Bible more carefully and it's showing me things that I hadn't thought of before.
For example the BKC talked about how when God saved the world with Noah the Bible ties the event back to Adam. First there is a garden in both accounts. That surprised me, and when I checked it said that Noah did plant a "vineyard" which is sort of a garden. The was nudity in both, but the nudity in the Garden is neutral while Noah's nudity is disgraceful. They are both commanded to "replenish" the Earth. Another tie back, although it’s not mentioned, is that the Lord again says that man is in the image of God(Gen 9:6).
The BKC is pointing out many things that I’ve missed. For example I’ve always thought that when Noah offered sacrifices he offered a sheep, a ram or a bull. However it says that he offered one of every clean animal. That was a massive offering. The BKC really stressed that only the animals on land died. That caught me by surprise because I’ve always thought that all animals died including the fish. I was thinking about why I thought that and I think the reason is because my Mom told me they died. However, the fact is that most of the water in the world is salt and if it was all mixed together then the fresh water were no more. I’m pretty sure that the salt water wouldn’t be so – whatever salt water is supposed to be – and those fish would have problems as well. However, I’m not really committed to either version. I mean I certainly wouldn’t say that fish would be able to survive a world wide inundation, but if they did OK as well.
I was hoping there would be some insight into why Noah curses Cannan but there isn’t any.
There is another tol’dot in Gen 10. It is the tol’dot of Japeth, Shem and Ham. The BKC points out that this is a horizontal genealogy meaning that it applies to the nations that arise from the sons of Noah. Of course ultimately all peoples arise from these sons so I guess that these are the main groups that will be interacting with the Isrealites. That is what the book sounds like, but I really don’t pay attention to parts like this usually. I usually just skimmed the parts talking about the nations. The BKC did point out that Nimrod was the first empire builder, so I paid attention to when he came up in the Bible and he did have an amazing number of cities or nations. When I looked in the KJV version it is not apparent that he was such a great empire builder.
To me, in the KJV, it’s not clear that Asshur isn’t a different person than Nimrod. So Nimrod is a much greater empire builder in the NIV than the KJV.
Another thing that surprised me is that the BKC said that when the “earth was divided” in the time of Peleg, it meant the division of mankind into different nations and tounges, and not that the Earth itself was divided. If you look at a map of the world, it’s pretty obvious that at one time all the continental land masses fit together into one super continent, and it’s called Peleg because of this scripture. I’ve just always accepted that this scripture was talking about the splitting of the Earth. Which reminds me of another thing. The BKC says that the splitting of the continents happened during the flood.
OK that’s reading a little more into the text than is there.
It doesn’t really matter when it happened. I would be good either way, but I think believers in the Bible get into trouble when they read more into the text than is there.
Finally there is another tol’dot starting Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Shem. The BKC points out that this is a vertical genealogy that show Abram’s descent from Shem. There is also another tol’dot near the end of Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Terah, who is the father of Abram, so it is basically the story of Abram.
For example the BKC talked about how when God saved the world with Noah the Bible ties the event back to Adam. First there is a garden in both accounts. That surprised me, and when I checked it said that Noah did plant a "vineyard" which is sort of a garden. The was nudity in both, but the nudity in the Garden is neutral while Noah's nudity is disgraceful. They are both commanded to "replenish" the Earth. Another tie back, although it’s not mentioned, is that the Lord again says that man is in the image of God(Gen 9:6).
The BKC is pointing out many things that I’ve missed. For example I’ve always thought that when Noah offered sacrifices he offered a sheep, a ram or a bull. However it says that he offered one of every clean animal. That was a massive offering. The BKC really stressed that only the animals on land died. That caught me by surprise because I’ve always thought that all animals died including the fish. I was thinking about why I thought that and I think the reason is because my Mom told me they died. However, the fact is that most of the water in the world is salt and if it was all mixed together then the fresh water were no more. I’m pretty sure that the salt water wouldn’t be so – whatever salt water is supposed to be – and those fish would have problems as well. However, I’m not really committed to either version. I mean I certainly wouldn’t say that fish would be able to survive a world wide inundation, but if they did OK as well.
I was hoping there would be some insight into why Noah curses Cannan but there isn’t any.
There is another tol’dot in Gen 10. It is the tol’dot of Japeth, Shem and Ham. The BKC points out that this is a horizontal genealogy meaning that it applies to the nations that arise from the sons of Noah. Of course ultimately all peoples arise from these sons so I guess that these are the main groups that will be interacting with the Isrealites. That is what the book sounds like, but I really don’t pay attention to parts like this usually. I usually just skimmed the parts talking about the nations. The BKC did point out that Nimrod was the first empire builder, so I paid attention to when he came up in the Bible and he did have an amazing number of cities or nations. When I looked in the KJV version it is not apparent that he was such a great empire builder.
Gen 10:8-11
8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city. (NIV)
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. (KJV)
To me, in the KJV, it’s not clear that Asshur isn’t a different person than Nimrod. So Nimrod is a much greater empire builder in the NIV than the KJV.
Another thing that surprised me is that the BKC said that when the “earth was divided” in the time of Peleg, it meant the division of mankind into different nations and tounges, and not that the Earth itself was divided. If you look at a map of the world, it’s pretty obvious that at one time all the continental land masses fit together into one super continent, and it’s called Peleg because of this scripture. I’ve just always accepted that this scripture was talking about the splitting of the Earth. Which reminds me of another thing. The BKC says that the splitting of the continents happened during the flood.
“On the other hand there were corresponding gigantic upheaval and shiftings of the earth’s crust which caused the oceans’ floors to rise and break up their reservoirs of subterranean waters.”
OK that’s reading a little more into the text than is there.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (Gen 7:11, NIV)
It doesn’t really matter when it happened. I would be good either way, but I think believers in the Bible get into trouble when they read more into the text than is there.
Finally there is another tol’dot starting Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Shem. The BKC points out that this is a vertical genealogy that show Abram’s descent from Shem. There is also another tol’dot near the end of Chapter 11, the tol’dot of Terah, who is the father of Abram, so it is basically the story of Abram.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Augustine and the Platonists
As I said I've been listening to some sets of lectures by Dr. Phillip Cary. I'm listening to the set now called "Augustine: Philosopher and Saint." I'm liking it very much so far. Dr. Cary is a Protestant, he says so, but he's also an Augustinian scholar. That makes sense because Augustine had a lot of influence on the Protestants, especially Luther and Calvin. The tapes that I've been listening to really point that out, more than I realized before.
With reading the Old Testament closely with the BKC I've really started noticing just how different the Classical Christian Orthodoxy of God is different from the Jewish view. I've read about this before, but now it's really starting to become real in a way that it never has before.
That being said I still find a lot of beauty in the way Dr. Cary explains how Augustine saw God, which was that he saw him in a Neoplatonistic way. I've always been drawn to the Platonistic view of "ideas" and can see that that is very appealing. The idea that God is outside of time, and very different from the rest of creation must be an appealing idea because to my, admittedly limited knowledge, it seems to be the description of many religions idea of God, or the One, or the Infinate or etc... The real difference in Christianity seems to be that while there is the One, somehow it's three, and one of the three walked the Earth.
I should really probably give Augustine more credit and less approbation. A couple of people have really pointed out that Augustine is really the point where Western Christianity begins to take on it's unique characteristic. Dr. Cary seems to be saying it, Bishop Stendhal seemed to say it, and Bro. Nibley and many LDS scholars seem to imply it as well. Augustine did get some things wrong, but was his influence for good more than the bad? I think so. It seems like Augustine was the influential in putting the West solidly on the path of giving reason and logic preeminence in Western Christian thought.
Someday I'm probably going to have to read Augustine myself. Umm and Luther...and Calvin... Hmmm.
With reading the Old Testament closely with the BKC I've really started noticing just how different the Classical Christian Orthodoxy of God is different from the Jewish view. I've read about this before, but now it's really starting to become real in a way that it never has before.
That being said I still find a lot of beauty in the way Dr. Cary explains how Augustine saw God, which was that he saw him in a Neoplatonistic way. I've always been drawn to the Platonistic view of "ideas" and can see that that is very appealing. The idea that God is outside of time, and very different from the rest of creation must be an appealing idea because to my, admittedly limited knowledge, it seems to be the description of many religions idea of God, or the One, or the Infinate or etc... The real difference in Christianity seems to be that while there is the One, somehow it's three, and one of the three walked the Earth.
I should really probably give Augustine more credit and less approbation. A couple of people have really pointed out that Augustine is really the point where Western Christianity begins to take on it's unique characteristic. Dr. Cary seems to be saying it, Bishop Stendhal seemed to say it, and Bro. Nibley and many LDS scholars seem to imply it as well. Augustine did get some things wrong, but was his influence for good more than the bad? I think so. It seems like Augustine was the influential in putting the West solidly on the path of giving reason and logic preeminence in Western Christian thought.
Someday I'm probably going to have to read Augustine myself. Umm and Luther...and Calvin... Hmmm.
A little consideration please (from the author)
As I've been writing about my impressions while reading the Old Testament and the BKC I realized that I'm being just a tiny bit critical. As I'm starting this reading of the OT I've also started listening to the Teaching Company lectures on Augustine by Dr. Phillip Cary.
I don't think that I could have had any clearer juxtaposition in the difference in the way the Greeks thought and the way that the Jews thought. Dr. Cary states clearly that the Early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, were Christian Platonists. People need to realize that Jews and Greeks saw the world differently. Isaiah and Plato were roughly contemporaries. Isaiah had no conception of the "Unmovable Mover," he could see God in the heavenly temple and describe him, and that's it. Very anthropomorphic those Jews.
Last night I was writing about the BKC and the way that the authors were saying that the Lord did not repent even when the KJV says that he did repent. I realized that I was being flippant and perhaps I needed to consider their view point a little more. I started thinking about the word repent and how I've read recently that in the Greek the word meant "a turning away from" or something like that. So I did a little research to see if maybe I'm perhaps being too judgmental.
According to Strong's the Greek word translated repent is
metanoeo 1. to change one's mind i.e. to repent 2. to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
The Hebrew word is
nacham a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):–comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent (-er, -ing, self)
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
A little more reading, and some of the other things that I've been reading lately seem to come to a head. In my research I found that many people think that the Christian concept of "sin" as being a moral failure is a post biblical concept. I think that this is what Bishop Stendhal was saying when he said that Augustine was the first modern introspective man, and that in the west we inherit that tendency to look inwardly and try to figure out what is going on in our souls. Dr. Cary in his tapes certain make it clear that Augustine was very introspective, in fact he had to make up a word for the inner dialogue that he was having, soliloquy.
The Jews were much more practical about sin, and their word for sin was "chet" which was more like "missing the mark" as in missing the target with an arrow. Well what happens when you miss the mark? You pull out another arrow and try again to improve your ability to hit the mark. Bishop Stendhal seemed to be implying something similar when he pointed out in his book "Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles" that Paul showed no "introspection" when he talked about sin. Of course to see that Bishop Stendhal says that you need to read Paul without the Augustinian/Lutheran lenses on.
If you look like it like that the saying that God "repented" of making mankind, it starts to make sense. It didn't think that He had made a terrible moral mistake that he needed to rectify. He just needed to start over because things had gone terribly wrong. At least that was probably the way that the Jew that wrote the Bible thought when he wrote that God repented.
I don't think that I could have had any clearer juxtaposition in the difference in the way the Greeks thought and the way that the Jews thought. Dr. Cary states clearly that the Early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, were Christian Platonists. People need to realize that Jews and Greeks saw the world differently. Isaiah and Plato were roughly contemporaries. Isaiah had no conception of the "Unmovable Mover," he could see God in the heavenly temple and describe him, and that's it. Very anthropomorphic those Jews.
Last night I was writing about the BKC and the way that the authors were saying that the Lord did not repent even when the KJV says that he did repent. I realized that I was being flippant and perhaps I needed to consider their view point a little more. I started thinking about the word repent and how I've read recently that in the Greek the word meant "a turning away from" or something like that. So I did a little research to see if maybe I'm perhaps being too judgmental.
According to Strong's the Greek word translated repent is
metanoeo 1. to change one's mind i.e. to repent 2. to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
The Hebrew word is
nacham a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):–comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent (-er, -ing, self)
1. to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a. (Niphal)
1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b. (Piel) to comfort, console
c. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d. (Hithpael)
1. to be sorry, have compassion
2. to rue, repent of
3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
4. to ease oneself
A little more reading, and some of the other things that I've been reading lately seem to come to a head. In my research I found that many people think that the Christian concept of "sin" as being a moral failure is a post biblical concept. I think that this is what Bishop Stendhal was saying when he said that Augustine was the first modern introspective man, and that in the west we inherit that tendency to look inwardly and try to figure out what is going on in our souls. Dr. Cary in his tapes certain make it clear that Augustine was very introspective, in fact he had to make up a word for the inner dialogue that he was having, soliloquy.
The Jews were much more practical about sin, and their word for sin was "chet" which was more like "missing the mark" as in missing the target with an arrow. Well what happens when you miss the mark? You pull out another arrow and try again to improve your ability to hit the mark. Bishop Stendhal seemed to be implying something similar when he pointed out in his book "Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles" that Paul showed no "introspection" when he talked about sin. Of course to see that Bishop Stendhal says that you need to read Paul without the Augustinian/Lutheran lenses on.
If you look like it like that the saying that God "repented" of making mankind, it starts to make sense. It didn't think that He had made a terrible moral mistake that he needed to rectify. He just needed to start over because things had gone terribly wrong. At least that was probably the way that the Jew that wrote the Bible thought when he wrote that God repented.
Gen 6
The BKC starts by saying, "This section's details have been the subject of endless debates..."
I can certainly agree with that. The commentary talks about the different theories about who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are, or what they are. I personally am willing to admit that there are things that I don't know and that this might be one of them. However, if I were forced to choose the theory I liked the best I would go with the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.
Gen 6:6 in the NIV is
Gen 6:6 in the KJV is
The commentary feels strongly enough about this that it takes the time to point out that "repented" in the KJV does not mean that the LORD changed His mind, because he is unchanging according to Mal 3:6. Apparently the Jews didn't know that and they used the wrong word once again, or in a way that we need to be warned not to misconstrue it.
The commentary says that this section shows the irony of Lamech prophecy because because God, instead of comforting mankind, is going to kill them. I don't know why they think that this is ironic. I guess they don't think that the righteous Jews in the Old Testament go to heaven. If I go to heaven after i die I expect that I will be comforted.
Gen 6:9 is a new tol'dot of Noah. I think that it's interesting that the last part of Adam's tol'dot talks about the corruption of society and then the new tol'dot starts off saying the same things. I suppose this emphasizes how corrupt mankind had gotten. I'd never noticed that before, probably because I'd never known about the tol'dot sections.
I can certainly agree with that. The commentary talks about the different theories about who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" are, or what they are. I personally am willing to admit that there are things that I don't know and that this might be one of them. However, if I were forced to choose the theory I liked the best I would go with the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain.
Gen 6:6 in the NIV is
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Gen 6:6 in the KJV is
6 And it repented the LORD that he had mad man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.
The commentary feels strongly enough about this that it takes the time to point out that "repented" in the KJV does not mean that the LORD changed His mind, because he is unchanging according to Mal 3:6. Apparently the Jews didn't know that and they used the wrong word once again, or in a way that we need to be warned not to misconstrue it.
The commentary says that this section shows the irony of Lamech prophecy because because God, instead of comforting mankind, is going to kill them. I don't know why they think that this is ironic. I guess they don't think that the righteous Jews in the Old Testament go to heaven. If I go to heaven after i die I expect that I will be comforted.
Gen 6:9 is a new tol'dot of Noah. I think that it's interesting that the last part of Adam's tol'dot talks about the corruption of society and then the new tol'dot starts off saying the same things. I suppose this emphasizes how corrupt mankind had gotten. I'd never noticed that before, probably because I'd never known about the tol'dot sections.
Gen 5
Gen 5 is the start of a new tol'dot, this time the "generations of Adam". The BKC feels that this is important because is shows that the introduction of evil was planned by God and was part of the creation of the Earth, which is why it was in the section "generations of the heavens and the earth." I think that pretty significant as well.
Verses 1-3 start off by saying again that Adam is in the likeness of God, and that Adam and Eve had "...a son in his own likeness, after his image..." However, although this is the same language that is used in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1 when it talked about Adam being in the image of God. The Jews who wrote this didn't know what they were saying, you see God doesn't look anything like man and the Jews were wrong to use this language. Silly Jews.
The BKC points out that many of the verses in Gen 5 have "and then they died" at the end of them. I've never noticed this before and I find it significant as well. It's always been my belief that whenever something is repeated in scripture the Lord is stressing it and wants us to take notice of it. The Lord is stressing that we all die, even if people used to live a long time.
The BKC says that when Enoch "walked" with God it meant that he followed God as in a "Christian Walk". While I agree that this is a common reference among Christians, I would be surprised if the Jews used it this way. What does the Bible mean in Gen 3:8 when it says that Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day? Although this is the only mention of Enoch is barely mentioned in the Bible, there is a lot more information about Enoch out there if someone is willing to look. There was a Book of Enoch that existed in the early days of Christianity. It was thought of highly by certain Christians. It was so highly thought of that there is a quote out of it in Jude, so part of the Book of Enoch actually is part of the Bible. Today the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their scriptures, as does the Jewish sect of Beta Israel (a group of Africa Jews in Ethiopia). There are a lot of traditions about Enoch and the traditions recount that Enoch did in fact walk with God literally. (One of these external traditions to the Bible, of course, is the LDS Pearl of Great Price.)
I was quite surprised by the way that the BKC treated the statement that Lamech made when Noah was born. The NIV has it as
The BKC says that this "prophecy" was not fulfilled the way that Lamech expected it to be fulfilled! How in the world do they arrive at that conclusion? They don't explain so I don't know. My idea of prophecy is not that the prophet says something under the influence of the Spirit and doesn't have any idea how it will be fulfilled. I was just caught be surprise by the way the BKC talked about this.
Verses 1-3 start off by saying again that Adam is in the likeness of God, and that Adam and Eve had "...a son in his own likeness, after his image..." However, although this is the same language that is used in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1 when it talked about Adam being in the image of God. The Jews who wrote this didn't know what they were saying, you see God doesn't look anything like man and the Jews were wrong to use this language. Silly Jews.
The BKC points out that many of the verses in Gen 5 have "and then they died" at the end of them. I've never noticed this before and I find it significant as well. It's always been my belief that whenever something is repeated in scripture the Lord is stressing it and wants us to take notice of it. The Lord is stressing that we all die, even if people used to live a long time.
The BKC says that when Enoch "walked" with God it meant that he followed God as in a "Christian Walk". While I agree that this is a common reference among Christians, I would be surprised if the Jews used it this way. What does the Bible mean in Gen 3:8 when it says that Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day? Although this is the only mention of Enoch is barely mentioned in the Bible, there is a lot more information about Enoch out there if someone is willing to look. There was a Book of Enoch that existed in the early days of Christianity. It was thought of highly by certain Christians. It was so highly thought of that there is a quote out of it in Jude, so part of the Book of Enoch actually is part of the Bible. Today the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their scriptures, as does the Jewish sect of Beta Israel (a group of Africa Jews in Ethiopia). There are a lot of traditions about Enoch and the traditions recount that Enoch did in fact walk with God literally. (One of these external traditions to the Bible, of course, is the LDS Pearl of Great Price.)
I was quite surprised by the way that the BKC treated the statement that Lamech made when Noah was born. The NIV has it as
28 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
The BKC says that this "prophecy" was not fulfilled the way that Lamech expected it to be fulfilled! How in the world do they arrive at that conclusion? They don't explain so I don't know. My idea of prophecy is not that the prophet says something under the influence of the Spirit and doesn't have any idea how it will be fulfilled. I was just caught be surprise by the way the BKC talked about this.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Gen 3-4
My first major surprise in the NIV came in ver 3:3 and it was pointed out by the BKC. It says
The BKC said "Eve disparaged the privileges, added to the prohibition, and weakened the penalty – all seen by contrasting, her words (Gen. 3:3) with God's original commands. (2:16-17)."
Now I heard a preacher on the radio once talking about how Eve had added the prohibition "...you must not touch [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]...", and because of that she had opened the way for disobedience because when she touched the fruit and she didn't die, she then thought that maybe she could eat the fruit as well, so by misquoting the Lord she was opening the door to disobedience. Perhaps that is what they were talking about here.
The NIV doesn't mention the time from for the death from disobedience. That they will die in "day" they partake of it. I don't see what the BKC is talking about when the say Eve "weakened the penalty" both verses say the penalty is death. I wonder why the NIV leaves out that they will die in the "day" that they partake? I can remember someone pointing out no one has lived longer than one day to the Lord. Peter says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (2 Pet 2:8).
BKC points out that after Satan has tempted Eve, and he then leaves her and she is left to herself and the fruit appeals to her natural side. The fruit is "good for food" appealing to appatite. It's all "pleasing to the eye" or beautiful. How often are humans lead astray by the beautifulness and desirability of something? And it was "desirable for gaining wisdom" or getting great knowledge. Now I don't really know that gaining knowledge is bad, but the BoM warns against becoming wise and thinking that you know more than the Lord (2 Nep 9:28).
The BKC makes a big point of describing Satan's tempting of Eve. It says that Satan first says that sin will not cause death, then he tries to say that Heavenly Father is jealous and doesn't want them to become like Him, and that he is holding them back. Then the BKC says "So Satan held out to the the promise of divinity – knowing good and evil." (emphasis in original). I don't know that Satan was offering to make them divine, it just says that it will make them like God. What would he offer to perfect immortal humans who were the associates of God that would make them more divine? I think the BKC oversteps in their emphasis.
Then after Adam and Eve partake and sin enters into the world, the only thing they actually got was "the knowledge of good and evil". In fact God confirms this when he says
So the lie Satan told was that they wouldn't die after they partook. This is the true insidiousness of Satan's lies, he mixes lies with truth to make it sound plausible, so that when you take the truth with the lie that's when you get in trouble. In this case it brings about death for everyone.
I like the insights that the BKC brings when they talk about the cursing that the Lord gives to Adam and Eve. First since is was Eve's "desire" for the fruit that got them in trouble in the first place, her "desire" is going to be to her husband, and this will result in her being ruled over by her husband. When I teach Genesis I like to point out to brethren that this is not a reward for Adam but punishment for Eve. So don't let this be something to swell a mans head.
It points our that the Serpent will spend its days eating dust. Man will die and return to the dust, and so, presumably, to being dominated by Satan once again at least symbolically.
They also describe how the Lord shows his concern for Adam and Eve by making the coats of skins. The BKC says that this is symbolic of the of the fact that later Israel will sacrifice animals that will remedy a curse for them as well.
Chapter 4 gives an account of how society becomes sinful starting with Cain. Pretty standard stuff here. The thing that was most interesting is that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door" that the word that is translated as "lies" would imply an animal crouching, ready to pounce, and that Cain is able to resist the crouching sin, and that it is his duty to do so.
The BKC says that the mark that the Lord puts on Cain is a mark of grace and that it protects Cain from retribution from any who should find him after he was thrown out of God's presence. The rest of the chapter talks about the introduction of evil/worldly society. The book seems to take culture to task here a little to much for my taste, but perhaps they are talking about worldly culture.
The BKC points out that the only words that are spoken in this chapter other than Cain's are Lamech's. The book says that Lamech breaks away from God's plan when he takes two wives. I'm pretty sure that that's reading more into the Bible than is there. I guess I'll have to wait to see how it handles the wives of Abraham, and others. I have always wondered what Lamech was talking about when he said the if Cain was protected 7 times, he would be protected 70 X 7. The book says that this is an example of pride and he's bragging. That sounds as good as anything else I've ever heard.
3. but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden and you must not touch it, or you will die.' (Gen 3, NIV)
The BKC said "Eve disparaged the privileges, added to the prohibition, and weakened the penalty – all seen by contrasting, her words (Gen. 3:3) with God's original commands. (2:16-17)."
Now I heard a preacher on the radio once talking about how Eve had added the prohibition "...you must not touch [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]...", and because of that she had opened the way for disobedience because when she touched the fruit and she didn't die, she then thought that maybe she could eat the fruit as well, so by misquoting the Lord she was opening the door to disobedience. Perhaps that is what they were talking about here.
17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. (Gen 2, NIV)
The NIV doesn't mention the time from for the death from disobedience. That they will die in "day" they partake of it. I don't see what the BKC is talking about when the say Eve "weakened the penalty" both verses say the penalty is death. I wonder why the NIV leaves out that they will die in the "day" that they partake? I can remember someone pointing out no one has lived longer than one day to the Lord. Peter says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (2 Pet 2:8).
BKC points out that after Satan has tempted Eve, and he then leaves her and she is left to herself and the fruit appeals to her natural side. The fruit is "good for food" appealing to appatite. It's all "pleasing to the eye" or beautiful. How often are humans lead astray by the beautifulness and desirability of something? And it was "desirable for gaining wisdom" or getting great knowledge. Now I don't really know that gaining knowledge is bad, but the BoM warns against becoming wise and thinking that you know more than the Lord (2 Nep 9:28).
The BKC makes a big point of describing Satan's tempting of Eve. It says that Satan first says that sin will not cause death, then he tries to say that Heavenly Father is jealous and doesn't want them to become like Him, and that he is holding them back. Then the BKC says "So Satan held out to the the promise of divinity – knowing good and evil." (emphasis in original). I don't know that Satan was offering to make them divine, it just says that it will make them like God. What would he offer to perfect immortal humans who were the associates of God that would make them more divine? I think the BKC oversteps in their emphasis.
Then after Adam and Eve partake and sin enters into the world, the only thing they actually got was "the knowledge of good and evil". In fact God confirms this when he says
22 "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever."
So the lie Satan told was that they wouldn't die after they partook. This is the true insidiousness of Satan's lies, he mixes lies with truth to make it sound plausible, so that when you take the truth with the lie that's when you get in trouble. In this case it brings about death for everyone.
I like the insights that the BKC brings when they talk about the cursing that the Lord gives to Adam and Eve. First since is was Eve's "desire" for the fruit that got them in trouble in the first place, her "desire" is going to be to her husband, and this will result in her being ruled over by her husband. When I teach Genesis I like to point out to brethren that this is not a reward for Adam but punishment for Eve. So don't let this be something to swell a mans head.
It points our that the Serpent will spend its days eating dust. Man will die and return to the dust, and so, presumably, to being dominated by Satan once again at least symbolically.
They also describe how the Lord shows his concern for Adam and Eve by making the coats of skins. The BKC says that this is symbolic of the of the fact that later Israel will sacrifice animals that will remedy a curse for them as well.
Chapter 4 gives an account of how society becomes sinful starting with Cain. Pretty standard stuff here. The thing that was most interesting is that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door" that the word that is translated as "lies" would imply an animal crouching, ready to pounce, and that Cain is able to resist the crouching sin, and that it is his duty to do so.
The BKC says that the mark that the Lord puts on Cain is a mark of grace and that it protects Cain from retribution from any who should find him after he was thrown out of God's presence. The rest of the chapter talks about the introduction of evil/worldly society. The book seems to take culture to task here a little to much for my taste, but perhaps they are talking about worldly culture.
The BKC points out that the only words that are spoken in this chapter other than Cain's are Lamech's. The book says that Lamech breaks away from God's plan when he takes two wives. I'm pretty sure that that's reading more into the Bible than is there. I guess I'll have to wait to see how it handles the wives of Abraham, and others. I have always wondered what Lamech was talking about when he said the if Cain was protected 7 times, he would be protected 70 X 7. The book says that this is an example of pride and he's bragging. That sounds as good as anything else I've ever heard.
Genesis 1-2
I've managed to get through the the first four chapters of Genesis and it's been pretty interesting, but I've read a lot of things that I want to mention so this will just cover through Gen 1-2.
Starting with Gen 1:1-2 the LDS don't believe in creatio ex nihlo. One question I have for those who do believe in creatio ex nihlo is; "Why, if God created everything from nothing, why did He first create chaos? Why didn't He just go directly to the finished product?" The BKC admits that there is a problem. They said that some people think that there might be a "gap" between the first two verses which would allow Satan to fall and create the chaos. The authors of the book say "The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it. The fall of Satan and entrance of sin into God's original Creation would precede this." I find this solution less convincing.
The LDS think that matter exists eternally and that God organized matter for this Earth. We are also taught that God only give humans an account of this Earth, not an account of all creation (Moses 1:35) because God's creations are infinite and man cannot comprehend all them.
Of course when we reach vs 26 the BKC states that man being created in the "image" of God is "figurative." They have to say that because it's possible to read it literally, just the way that it's written, because if they don't say that it's figurative then the entire theology of the Trinity falls apart.
Verse 2:4 is the first tol'dot "the generations of the heavens and the earth." BKC doesn't mention that this is a different account of creation than was recounted in in Gen 1:1-2:3. In the first account humans are the culmination of creation. In this account Adam is created before there are shrubs or plants. This seems to be a problem for many people because the accounts are different. However, BKC does point out that this account uses Jehovah for the name of the Lord, instead of Elohim as the first account did. I never new that. The LDS believe that the first account of creation was a spiritual creation, and the plan was made by Elohim, and that the second account "the generation of the heavens and the earth" is the actual physical creation which was carried out by Jehovah, or Jesus, executing Elohim's plan.
The BKC points out that God said that it was "not good" for man to be alone. This is the only time in the creation that the product is not pronounced "good." It wasn't "good" or I suppose finished, until the man and women were married and made one flesh. The BKC does say that they are married, but they don't mention that when they were married they were still eternal beings so God must have meant for them to be married forever.
Another interesting tidbit that the BKC points out is that the word that translated "suitable helper" in the NIV or "help meet" in the KJV is the same word that is used for the Lord in is Pss 33:20, 70:5, 115:9. That's pretty cool and I think that really reinforces the womans role.
Starting with Gen 1:1-2 the LDS don't believe in creatio ex nihlo. One question I have for those who do believe in creatio ex nihlo is; "Why, if God created everything from nothing, why did He first create chaos? Why didn't He just go directly to the finished product?" The BKC admits that there is a problem. They said that some people think that there might be a "gap" between the first two verses which would allow Satan to fall and create the chaos. The authors of the book say "The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it. The fall of Satan and entrance of sin into God's original Creation would precede this." I find this solution less convincing.
The LDS think that matter exists eternally and that God organized matter for this Earth. We are also taught that God only give humans an account of this Earth, not an account of all creation (Moses 1:35) because God's creations are infinite and man cannot comprehend all them.
Of course when we reach vs 26 the BKC states that man being created in the "image" of God is "figurative." They have to say that because it's possible to read it literally, just the way that it's written, because if they don't say that it's figurative then the entire theology of the Trinity falls apart.
Verse 2:4 is the first tol'dot "the generations of the heavens and the earth." BKC doesn't mention that this is a different account of creation than was recounted in in Gen 1:1-2:3. In the first account humans are the culmination of creation. In this account Adam is created before there are shrubs or plants. This seems to be a problem for many people because the accounts are different. However, BKC does point out that this account uses Jehovah for the name of the Lord, instead of Elohim as the first account did. I never new that. The LDS believe that the first account of creation was a spiritual creation, and the plan was made by Elohim, and that the second account "the generation of the heavens and the earth" is the actual physical creation which was carried out by Jehovah, or Jesus, executing Elohim's plan.
The BKC points out that God said that it was "not good" for man to be alone. This is the only time in the creation that the product is not pronounced "good." It wasn't "good" or I suppose finished, until the man and women were married and made one flesh. The BKC does say that they are married, but they don't mention that when they were married they were still eternal beings so God must have meant for them to be married forever.
Another interesting tidbit that the BKC points out is that the word that translated "suitable helper" in the NIV or "help meet" in the KJV is the same word that is used for the Lord in is Pss 33:20, 70:5, 115:9. That's pretty cool and I think that really reinforces the womans role.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Bible Knowledge Commentary
The full title for this book is "The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty Old Testament Based on the New International Version." (BKC) Man is that an impressive title or what? As I explained in my last post I'm reading the NIV as my version of the Bible this year, and since this Bible commentary will sync with it I'm reading them together and so far I'm having a lot of fun with it, and learning quite a bit. I'm going to call it the BKC for short because that's just to long of a title to type repeatedly.
I'm excited about reading the commentary because the Dallas Seminary seems to be a very conservative seminary. The book has a preface that explains why they are writing another commentary on the Bible. I don't remember why they're writing this, but I expect it has something to do with they feel that they can provide insights to studying the Bible for those who read the BKC. There are two volumes, one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament.
For Genesis, and I expect for all the books of the Old Testament, they start with an Introduction. This one is written by Allen P. Ross. I really liked this introduction. Dr. Ross covers many of the different threads of scholarship that the Old Testament has been subjected to in a very succinct way. I thought he dealt with them very well.
One thing that is pointed out is the natural division of Genesis into an initial section and the 11 following sections. Each of these section is started by the word tol'dot ("these are the generations of..."). I never knew that before. So the sections are
1. Creation (1:1-2:3)
2. tol'dot of the heavens and the earth (2:4-4:26)
3. tol'dot of Adam (5:1-6:8)
4. tol'dot of Noah (6:9-9:29)
5. tol'dot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1-11:9)
6. tol'dot of Shem (11:10-26)
7. tol'dot of Terah (11:27-25:11)
8. tol'dot of Ishmael (25:12-18)
9. tol'dot of Isaac (25:19-35:29)
10. tol'dot of Esau (36:1-8)
11. tol'dot of Esau, father of the Edomites (36:9-37:1)
12. tol'dot of Jacob (37:2-50:26)
One thing that I found funny about the preface was when the author said that they would take care of apparent contradictions. I guess the Dallas Seminary take an inerrant view of the Bible. This should be interesting.
I'm excited about reading the commentary because the Dallas Seminary seems to be a very conservative seminary. The book has a preface that explains why they are writing another commentary on the Bible. I don't remember why they're writing this, but I expect it has something to do with they feel that they can provide insights to studying the Bible for those who read the BKC. There are two volumes, one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament.
For Genesis, and I expect for all the books of the Old Testament, they start with an Introduction. This one is written by Allen P. Ross. I really liked this introduction. Dr. Ross covers many of the different threads of scholarship that the Old Testament has been subjected to in a very succinct way. I thought he dealt with them very well.
One thing that is pointed out is the natural division of Genesis into an initial section and the 11 following sections. Each of these section is started by the word tol'dot ("these are the generations of..."). I never knew that before. So the sections are
1. Creation (1:1-2:3)
2. tol'dot of the heavens and the earth (2:4-4:26)
3. tol'dot of Adam (5:1-6:8)
4. tol'dot of Noah (6:9-9:29)
5. tol'dot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1-11:9)
6. tol'dot of Shem (11:10-26)
7. tol'dot of Terah (11:27-25:11)
8. tol'dot of Ishmael (25:12-18)
9. tol'dot of Isaac (25:19-35:29)
10. tol'dot of Esau (36:1-8)
11. tol'dot of Esau, father of the Edomites (36:9-37:1)
12. tol'dot of Jacob (37:2-50:26)
One thing that I found funny about the preface was when the author said that they would take care of apparent contradictions. I guess the Dallas Seminary take an inerrant view of the Bible. This should be interesting.
Reading the Bible again
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have four books of scripture. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ (from where the term Mormon comes from), the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible. I've struggled with the best way to study the scriptures. I've only ever heard the Apostles and prophets tell that reading the Book of Mormon daily comes with promised blessings. I've never actually studied that, but that's the impression that I get. However, we believe that all four books are scripture. We also believe in continuing revelation. So every six months we have a General Conference where our Apostles and prophets get together and speak to the world, and we believe that this is current scripture.
While I was on my mission we were given the goal of reading 10 pages of scriptures a day. For me that was easy and I would generally read 20 pages a day. I did this because I'm a self righteous pig and want to be better than everyone around me, even though I'm very average. However, I am a good reader and reading 20 pages was not that hard for me. After my mission I tried to keep that up, but it was too much and I would finish the Book of Mormon once a year but that'd be by cramming in the last couple of weeks, generally after school was over. Later in life I figured out that if you read 5 scripture chapters/sections a day that you can finish the scriptures in a year, and still have time left over to read the Ensign, if you're diligent. Also, some of the chapters are just to long to read in a single day such as Jacob 5. After a while that became too hard and all I was really doing was trying to put in the reading time to stay on schedule. I finally came to the conclusion that what I needed to do was to read one chapter of the Book of Mormon a day and then 3 chapters a day of other scriptures. (I forgot that you needed to read 5 books and thought it was only 4.) Now I read one chapter of the Book of Mormon each day and some other chapters in other scriptures. However, I don't try to read them on any kind of a schedule I generally shoot for having a spiritual experience each day with the scriptures, although that doesn't always work it's a goal.
A few years ago I decided that I'd start rotating versions of the Bible each year as I read it. I think that I've read the RSV, and the ASV that way. This is how I used to pick the version of the Bible to read. I'd go the book store find an inexpensive version (read that as cheap) and then I would read John 3:13
If it didn't have the phrase, or something close to "...son of man which is in heaven." I wouldn't get it. Pretty good standard right? By this standard I never read the NIV because it was always one of the most expensive versions of the Bible (and it doesn't have the phrase, but it was always disqualified before I got to that because of the cost). I've always thought that was a little weird. Many Bibles versions are basically given away for free, but not the NIV, they always want the cash laid out.
I'm rambling for a reason. I bought this iPod app called BibleReader by Olive Tree. I was looking for a Bible reading app that had that a Strong's concordance. This ended up costing me quite a bit of money because I noticed the the BibleReader app had a lot of Bible study features that I thought I'd like and I bought some packages of study materials, one of which had was called the NIV package, which included the NIV, the Todays NIV which is an update of the 1978 NIV, and the NIrV, where the 'r' stands for reader and it a simpler version of the NIV Bible for people who have trouble reading English. I don't know that I'm going to be reading those other NIV versions but I am reading the NIV Bible as my Bible Versions this time through.
It also has a number of study guides that you can get as well, and when you read the Bible it will sync your Bible with the study guide. It's pretty dang sweet.
As I mentioned one thing that I was especially looking for was a bible version with the Strong's Concordance associated with it. I didn't get the BibleReader Strong's Concordance because it was too expensive. However, I do now have to apps that do have the Strong Concordance. One is called Strongs. It is a free app. I also have the Touch Bible Loaded which is a paid app, and it has the KJV with Strong's Numbers. I guess that I bought it for that feature because I don't see another reason that I would have bought it.
While I was on my mission we were given the goal of reading 10 pages of scriptures a day. For me that was easy and I would generally read 20 pages a day. I did this because I'm a self righteous pig and want to be better than everyone around me, even though I'm very average. However, I am a good reader and reading 20 pages was not that hard for me. After my mission I tried to keep that up, but it was too much and I would finish the Book of Mormon once a year but that'd be by cramming in the last couple of weeks, generally after school was over. Later in life I figured out that if you read 5 scripture chapters/sections a day that you can finish the scriptures in a year, and still have time left over to read the Ensign, if you're diligent. Also, some of the chapters are just to long to read in a single day such as Jacob 5. After a while that became too hard and all I was really doing was trying to put in the reading time to stay on schedule. I finally came to the conclusion that what I needed to do was to read one chapter of the Book of Mormon a day and then 3 chapters a day of other scriptures. (I forgot that you needed to read 5 books and thought it was only 4.) Now I read one chapter of the Book of Mormon each day and some other chapters in other scriptures. However, I don't try to read them on any kind of a schedule I generally shoot for having a spiritual experience each day with the scriptures, although that doesn't always work it's a goal.
A few years ago I decided that I'd start rotating versions of the Bible each year as I read it. I think that I've read the RSV, and the ASV that way. This is how I used to pick the version of the Bible to read. I'd go the book store find an inexpensive version (read that as cheap) and then I would read John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)
If it didn't have the phrase, or something close to "...son of man which is in heaven." I wouldn't get it. Pretty good standard right? By this standard I never read the NIV because it was always one of the most expensive versions of the Bible (and it doesn't have the phrase, but it was always disqualified before I got to that because of the cost). I've always thought that was a little weird. Many Bibles versions are basically given away for free, but not the NIV, they always want the cash laid out.
I'm rambling for a reason. I bought this iPod app called BibleReader by Olive Tree. I was looking for a Bible reading app that had that a Strong's concordance. This ended up costing me quite a bit of money because I noticed the the BibleReader app had a lot of Bible study features that I thought I'd like and I bought some packages of study materials, one of which had was called the NIV package, which included the NIV, the Todays NIV which is an update of the 1978 NIV, and the NIrV, where the 'r' stands for reader and it a simpler version of the NIV Bible for people who have trouble reading English. I don't know that I'm going to be reading those other NIV versions but I am reading the NIV Bible as my Bible Versions this time through.
It also has a number of study guides that you can get as well, and when you read the Bible it will sync your Bible with the study guide. It's pretty dang sweet.
As I mentioned one thing that I was especially looking for was a bible version with the Strong's Concordance associated with it. I didn't get the BibleReader Strong's Concordance because it was too expensive. However, I do now have to apps that do have the Strong Concordance. One is called Strongs. It is a free app. I also have the Touch Bible Loaded which is a paid app, and it has the KJV with Strong's Numbers. I guess that I bought it for that feature because I don't see another reason that I would have bought it.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The History of Theology
This is a tape set that I got from the Teaching Company. If anyone is interested it’s web site is teach12.com. It started out very very slowly and I’d just about decided that I didn’t like it. However, I really started liking it and ended up getting two more tape sets by the lecturer. A Dr. Phillip Cary. It seems to me that he is a believer and lectures in that way. Also, he is an Augustine scholar so I got his tapes on Augustine, and his tapes on Philosophy and Religion in the West.
He really presents the ideas of different theologies very well. Ive had problems determining exactly what kind of a believer he is, although I’m pretty sure that he’s a believer. I find these kinds of tapes sets and books about theology fascinating. The thing that I’m especially fascinated by is the way Christian theology is totally separated from the scriptures.
For example Jesus says that He and the Father are one. OK. That is an “a priori“ statement by Jesus so it has to be true. Then the early Christian Theologian/Philosophers assume the neo-Platonist view of God and for the next 700 years try to describe how the neo-Platonist Prime Mover fits with the Jewish Scriptures. Here’s the thing that kills me about this. One of the neo-Platonist views of God is that he is impassionate? Where in the scriptures is God described as being impassionate? See the Greeks realized that we as humans can at times be completely controlled by our passions, and often when that happens we do stupid things. Thus they decided that a perfect being would never have passions that would cause them to do stupid things. However how can a God that says things like
How exactly is a “jealous God” impassionate? God is constantly described in the Jewish Scriptures with very strong emotions, and the last days of Christ’s life are described as The Passion. I’ve never understood why Christians accept this classical description of God. Don’t get me started on the rest of it.
Besides the fact that I think it’s totally missguided I still find the process of theology fascinating. Also, I do think that they have very deep insights at times. The really funny thing is that when I start to try and describe what others accept as classical theology, or their denominations accept and teach, they don’t seem to believe it at all.
He really presents the ideas of different theologies very well. Ive had problems determining exactly what kind of a believer he is, although I’m pretty sure that he’s a believer. I find these kinds of tapes sets and books about theology fascinating. The thing that I’m especially fascinated by is the way Christian theology is totally separated from the scriptures.
For example Jesus says that He and the Father are one. OK. That is an “a priori“ statement by Jesus so it has to be true. Then the early Christian Theologian/Philosophers assume the neo-Platonist view of God and for the next 700 years try to describe how the neo-Platonist Prime Mover fits with the Jewish Scriptures. Here’s the thing that kills me about this. One of the neo-Platonist views of God is that he is impassionate? Where in the scriptures is God described as being impassionate? See the Greeks realized that we as humans can at times be completely controlled by our passions, and often when that happens we do stupid things. Thus they decided that a perfect being would never have passions that would cause them to do stupid things. However how can a God that says things like
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Deut 5)
How exactly is a “jealous God” impassionate? God is constantly described in the Jewish Scriptures with very strong emotions, and the last days of Christ’s life are described as The Passion. I’ve never understood why Christians accept this classical description of God. Don’t get me started on the rest of it.
Besides the fact that I think it’s totally missguided I still find the process of theology fascinating. Also, I do think that they have very deep insights at times. The really funny thing is that when I start to try and describe what others accept as classical theology, or their denominations accept and teach, they don’t seem to believe it at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)