Is The Old Testement Really Gods Word ?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1317672238' post='2314767']
2 Kings 2
"As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” [b]24[/b] He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."

it actually makes me laugh, when i read it. it's written almost as if by a professional comedian, mock-umenter. an it's like... really??
[/quote]
Me too!
[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1317629372' post='2314458']

Okay. The God of the Prophets is the same God of the Apostle Paul. So how about the 'killing and massacre' of innocent children written in the old testament?
[/quote]
As DG points out sense it makes non.

[Guest]

Being bald myself I like this idea of God killing people making fun of me. Good stuff.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1317691649' post='2314927']
Being bald myself I like this idea of God killing people making fun of me. Good stuff.
[/quote]


Yeah - where is that good old fashioned vengeful God when you need Him to smite your enemies? Huh?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1317691649' post='2314927']
Being bald myself I like this idea of God killing people making fun of me. Good stuff.
[/quote]
Maybe it would have been better to ask is the Old Testament free of errors. From a believers point of view if God wanted to talk to me through the racing guide then he could and the racing guide would be the word of God in that instance. So to ask is the old testament the word of God, we would have to say yes it is, because that's it's intended purpose. But that story of the bears which is two much two bear sounds like someone has written a tale and because it relates to that particular era and to prophets it has gotten included in the Bible but does not really belong. If you ask is the Bible the word of God when it speaks of violence then what do you ask about a story of a man surviving inside a whale? Or of Noah's flood that primary school children can't see the logic in.

I'm not completely bald so I'm still impartial.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[mortify]

This is an interesting topic, and one that I have not been able to devote serious study to. I can only add some small meditations I have made on the topic.

Two important principles are that God was working with fallen humanity, and that He tolerate certain practices despite it being against His ideal. The best example of this is Jesus' teaching on divorce. When the pharisees questioned Jesus about his teaching, they rightly pointed to the Old Testament scripture that indicate it's permission. What Jesus revealed was that this was permitted on account of the weakness of human beings, but that He was now restoring what God has originally intended. This opens the question to what else God might have tolerated prior to mankind reaching greater maturity. Based off of Jesus' teaching on love and forgiveness to one's enemies, we may infer that included prior acts of war and aggression.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1318131861' post='2318290']
This is an interesting topic, and one that I have not been able to devote serious study to. I can only add some small meditations I have made on the topic.

Two important principles are that God was working with fallen humanity, and that He tolerate certain practices despite it being against His ideal. The best example of this is Jesus' teaching on divorce. When the pharisees questioned Jesus about his teaching, they rightly pointed to the Old Testament scripture that indicate it's permission. What Jesus revealed was that this was permitted on account of the weakness of human beings, but that He was now restoring what God has originally intended. This opens the question to what else God might have tolerated prior to mankind reaching greater maturity. Based off of Jesus' teaching on love and forgiveness to one's enemies, we may infer that included prior acts of war and aggression.
[/quote]
That's a very interesting view point, being more tolerant?... maybe! but I'm still having difficulty with the concept that God would behave harshly because that was the order of the day. You're implying that in the example of 2Kings2 God answered the request for disproportionate punishment because the people of that time expected it. I also find the figure of 42 a mystery. Surely only ring leaders need punishment. To the rest their witness would be sufficient. How could God kill people at every whim because that was the mentality of the people but then later send his son to teach a more gentle people that it was wrong?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Just War doctrine, Moses and the slave driver. yes?no?maybe?

[AccountDeleted]

Well, perhaps I shouldn't weigh in on this debate again since I think it's fruitless to try to judge God, but didn't St Paul say that before Jesus died for our sins we were all enemies of God? And even His Chosen People kept defying Him over and over again, even though He kept forgiving them.

So, yeah, God was probably pretty p*ssed off with humans - although that is a total anthropromorphism of Him (or whatever the appropriate word is that has us giving Him human traits), but being so loving and compassionate, even though we were His enemies, He sent the Incarnation to atone for our sins and, according to St Paul, reconciled us with Him.

So there definitely is a before and after time in God's relationship with humans.... we were deserving of nothing but death, but then Jesus died for us all and sent us His Spirit to live within us... so now we have a new relationship with God, one of being forgiven and belonging to Him - St Paul once again, we have been bought and paid for. And our relationship now has changed from one of being enemies to being sons and daughters.

We are the ones who should be judged, not God.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1318147754' post='2318470']
That's a very interesting view point, being more tolerant?... maybe! but I'm still having difficulty with the concept that God would behave harshly because that was the order of the day.[/quote]

My point wasn't that God was harsh because people were harsh, but rather, God dealt with humanity wisely. Humanity had Fallen, and now God was preparing us for reconciliation. This had taken place in stages, and humanity at earlier stages simply could not handle certain truths, and other practices would have been too hard to follow. We can see how imprudent it would be to reveal the full truth of the Trinity, when the Israelites were regularly falling into polytheism and idolatry!

But to speak on your point, we have to remember a key teaching of Christ. God judges us on the same scale we judge others. In essence, He will treat us the way we treat others. If we show mercy, we will receive mercy. Now consider the context of the Ancient Jews. They are surrounded by pagan nations and tribes, some of which have became so perverse, that they regularly sacrifice their infants to a pagan deity. The order of the day is violence, if you don't raise a band of warriors to constantly defend your territory, you will be taken over, killed, and your women and children will be sold to slavery (at best.) Binding a "turn they cheek" attitude on mankind at this time would have meant certainly meant suicide for the Jews! So in sense you may be right, God's scale for justice depends largely on the recipient's own behavior and actions. For a tribe that regularly practices plundering, infant sacrifice, and enslavement of foreigners, is it really unjust for them to meet the same end?

[quote]You're implying that in the example of 2Kings2 God answered the request for disproportionate punishment because the people of that time expected it. I also find the figure of 42 a mystery. Surely only ring leaders need punishment. To the rest their witness would be sufficient. How could God kill people at every whim because that was the mentality of the people but then later send his son to teach a more gentle people that it was wrong?
[/quote]

That's not the implication I was intending, if that is what you gathered. I do think at the time of Elisha the stakes for the Truth were much higher. Fewer people followed the truth, and so it was more likely to be lost. For this reason God would have gone to greater lengths to foster it's growth and protection. As an aside, Theologians speculate this is why God permitted polygamy in the past. If you look at the genealogies in Genesis prior to the Flood, you will notice every marriage was monogamous (one husband and one wife.) The first one to introduce polygamy was a descendant of Cain (the one famous for killing his brother Abel.) God's clear intention is that each man be married to one woman, and that this bond to exist forever. But he permitted patriarchs to have multiple wives so that the community focused on His will may grow. I only add this to further my point, that God wisely permitted certain things to fulfill His will, but that with Christ His ideal has been restored, and now that is what we must follow.

So going back to our point, punishing a town with a calamity would have served an end to preserve the Truth, and foster it's growth. In regards to the case you mention above, Bethel had originally been part of the Kingdom of Israel. But they eventually separated in order to establish a cult surrounding a golden calf deity. The boys that had gone to mock Elisha, were raised in this false religion, and mocked him not because of who he was, but because of what he was. As a great Prophet, Elisha personified the truth religion, and attacking him was an attack on the Truth. He had cursed them not to defend his own character, but to defend God's truth. God had meted out his punishment through a natural cause.

Was it disproportionate? I don't think so. The group of boys came as a crowd with one heart and will, even if only a handful had spoke out for them. They may have reached the age of reason, and so their participation in the cult was no longer so dubious. But I think their malicious attack on Elisha is what caused them to have such a terrible end.


In Christ,
Mort

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1318173641' post='2318524']

So going back to our point, punishing a town with a calamity would have served an end to preserve the Truth, and foster it's growth. In regards to the case you mention above, Bethel had originally been part of the Kingdom of Israel. But they eventually separated in order to establish a cult surrounding a golden calf deity. The boys that had gone to mock Elisha, were raised in this false religion, and mocked him not because of who he was, but because of what he was. As a great Prophet, Elisha personified the truth religion, and attacking him was an attack on the Truth. He had cursed them not to defend his own character, but to defend God's truth. God had meted out his punishment through a natural cause.

Was it disproportionate? I don't think so. The group of boys came as a crowd with one heart and will, even if only a handful had spoke out for them. They may have reached the age of reason, and so their participation in the cult was no longer so dubious. But I think their malicious attack on Elisha is what caused them to have such a terrible end.


In Christ,
Mort
[/quote]
What you're saying is that the punishment is not for just taunting Elisha which is what the reading implies, but because of other factors involving the town from where they came. That's a pretty good explanation and I like it. But if that is true it is evidence that the Bible is badly written or lacking in some area's. Maybe there is purpose in that or maybe not.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1318194671' post='2318658']
What you're saying is that the punishment is not for just taunting Elisha which is what the reading implies, but because of other factors involving the town from where they came[/quote]

The text is evident that this was not mere taunting. The youths not only mock Elisha, they tell him to get out of their town:

[b][i]“Get out of here, baldy!”[/i][/b]

If you read the verse in context, you see Elijah and Elisha are traveling from town to town. At each town a group of believers greet them. After Elijah is taken to heaven, Elisha returns to the town they started in, Bethel. It is at this location that the band of youths meet Elisha, and tell him to get out of there. It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to realize that they were not friends to the two greatest prophets of their time. This in itself points to them being outside of the faithful. The fact that they are from Bethel is very significant. We read in 1 Kings 12 that Bethel is made into the Capital of worshiping the Golden Calf. The rebellious king Jeroboam, intended the false religion in Bethel, to compete with the true religion in Judah. It therefore makes it very probable, that these youths were from this camp of Calf Worshipers. We know for sure they were not followers of the true religion, but I say it's only probable that they were worshipers of the golden calf because they may have followed some other false cult. Thus there mockery of Elisha, and demand that he leave their town, really had a religious motive. They hated him because he was a Prophet of God.

[stevil]

But if they didn't believe in god then they wouldn't have thought he was a prophet of god. They would have seen him as either crazy or misguided. Either way, they didn't deserve to have two bears put onto them. What kind of sick prank is that. They called a guy some names, so what. Live and let live I say. The message of this story is just sick!

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1318237614' post='2318995']
But if they didn't believe in god then they wouldn't have thought he was a prophet of god. They would have seen him as either crazy or misguided. Either way, they didn't deserve to have two bears put onto them. What kind of sick prank is that. They called a guy some names, so what. Live and let live I say. The message of this story is just sick!
[/quote]
I have to agree with you. Although I liked what Mort wrote it still doesn't do it for me. It is inconsistent with the God of the now and my personal God. There are nations and people who behave like that, yet God does not bring down instant severe and harsh punishment. His objective seems to be always trying to bring them to himself. For example when a person writes against religion on a forum, I feel that God wants me to discuss their difficulties. No doubt I cannot bring anyone to conversion, but it is said that God never stops calling those to himself. The objective of the religious is to be an instrument of that process, that is why I have chosen to be a member of the RCIA team. If someone turns away, we are sad, but our promise has been never to annoy them and to respect their decision. The thought of punishment to someone who told me to get away baldy is abhorrent. In this day and age we often see it is the poor yet spiritual nations/people who seem to suffer more than the rich. In Jesus time, Jesus asked the woman if anyone judged her and said "neither do I!" Maybe different circumstances, but to me the message is always, God prefers people to judge themselves and repent. Chastisement is usualy effected by circumstance rather than by God. If we commit a crime society punishes us by prison or by denying us certain things. For example, If we don't pay our bills we can't get a house loan. If we cheat our employer we find it difficult to find rewarding employment.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1318152522' post='2318480']
Well, perhaps I shouldn't weigh in on this debate again since I think it's fruitless to try to judge God, but didn't St Paul say that before Jesus died for our sins we were all enemies of God? And even His Chosen People kept defying Him over and over again, even though He kept forgiving them.

So, yeah, God was probably pretty p*ssed off with humans - although that is a total anthropromorphism of Him (or whatever the appropriate word is that has us giving Him human traits), but being so loving and compassionate, even though we were His enemies, He sent the Incarnation to atone for our sins and, according to St Paul, reconciled us with Him.

So there definitely is a before and after time in God's relationship with humans.... we were deserving of nothing but death, but then Jesus died for us all and sent us His Spirit to live within us... so now we have a new relationship with God, one of being forgiven and belonging to Him - St Paul once again, we have been bought and paid for. And our relationship now has changed from one of being enemies to being sons and daughters.

We are the ones who should be judged, not God.
[/quote]
A change in Gods attitude/mind? Personally I believe God has a plan right from the beginning. He even knew that we would fall. But had to let it happen so we could rise again. Many people think God is pst with us. If I make a hammer do I expect it to cut wood? I think for each individual God only expects what they are capable of. So I agree with you that there was a change in our relationship but wish to point out that any change in Gods attitude from the OT to NT and to now is only made by the change in humans. What humans were capable of in OT times and what they are capable of now. God I imagine expects more of modern man than of OT man. I watched a doco on 'Cold' how scientists thought that cold was something rather than the absence of heat. Their experiments were laughable! And hence I can see that the teachings for people of the OT are inconsistent to what we expect. Therefore I postulate that contradictions in the Bible are because certain things have become redundant. The question! Is the OT the word of God? Of course it is, because there are still a large number of people who have the OT mentality. For the more enlightened. We only get answers to questions therefore if we already have the answer in Jesus there is not need for certain OT lessons. If I read a gardening book and I am an expert on roses, do I need to read the section on roses?

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[mortify]

Consider a father who scolds his 14 year old son for drinking alcohol, but then buys him a round ten years later. Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Adults deal differently with children than they do with other adults, and for good reason. We have to think of salvation history in this sense.

Edited October 11, 2011 by mortify