Roger Pearse

Seems to be just a bit of childish vituperation. Being deeply cynical, as I am, I always find that kind of atheism funny, so continuez, my boy.

Thomas II

Yes, and to this day this is how they see it...
http://www.preparingforeternity.com/pp/pp31.htm

Thomas II

And you don't consider praying to the god of the volcano a childish vituperation? :huh:

semiopen

This is my first post so bear with me...

The posts in this thread so far seem Christian in nature, which is not the most respectful or intelligent way to look at the Hebrew bible in my opinion. It's not really clear what they were doing.

The key to understanding this story is to compare it (Exodus 32:1-4) to Jeroboam and his sons (1 Kings 12:26-33). This is discussed for example in A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Miller and Hayes.

The Jeroboam story is also important when looking at the Golden Calf(s).

Toto

Welcome, semiopen. Only a few of those who have posted think of themselves as Christian.

I have added an amazon url to your post. It would help if you could summarize the point and how it helps understanding this passage.

Ray Moscow

Yeah, the church I was raised in offered this "cautionary tale" every time someone wanted to try anything different.

semiopen

Thanks, it's nice to be here.

My Exodus citation was in error, that is the Golden Calf. Nadav and Avihu is found in Leviticus 10:1... The "v" s in the names are the Hebrew letter Bet which can be pronounced b or v; I'm not sure where Ahihu comes from but it seems to work ok on Google.

I understand the secular orientation of this group and was pointing out that Christian opinions of the old testatment are often dubious. In this case, the literal reading a few lines of the text followed by childish moralizing is not technically wrong but naive. If one looks at Google, a lot of these interpretations/moralizings pop up.

Some Jewish sources (Zohar, etc.) point out that neither of the brother's had children which has quite interesting implications. There is a minority view that the sons were intoxicated (from Lev 10:8) but this seems unlikely. It appears they made a technical error of some sort during the offering which resulted in their death, the actual death seems to me more like stepping in front of a moving train than a punishment from God. This opinion is sort of supported by Maimonides, that the fire initially descended to take Moses and Aaron's offering and then moved to the son's. This is disputed by other commentators however, who suggest a separate divine fire of wrath.

Assuming that an actual punishment from God was involved, this is not clearly negative. In this case, the sin is expiated in this life rather than the world to come, and one might argue that this is positive.

A more secular interpretation of this story makes more sense. There was a politcal struggle over who would become priests. It stands to reason that the biblical books become more historically accurate as the events described become closer to the time of actual writing. Therefore the stories of Jeroboam and his sons is most likely closer to reality than the accounts in Exodus and Leviticus.

Jeroboam and Aaron have much in common. They both construct golden calves, both proclaim this was the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and both had two sons with very similar names (Nadab and Abihu/Abijab).

Miller and Hayes suggest that Jeroboam's original intent was to revive Aaronite traditions in the north, bypassing the Elide (Mosaic) line in Shiloh. Ahiljah the Shilonite proclaims the destruction of Jeroboam's house; Abijab dies immediately, while Nadab is assassinated by Baasa in the second year of his reign (and his entire family is massacred).

It's important to keep in mind that early Israel was not strictly monotheistic until after the first exile and that the bible underwent many modifications over the years. Looking for moral lessons in the Hebrew bible stories seems counterproductive to me.

Thomas II

:constern01: I'm not understanding this...Are you saying that Christians don't read the Bible looking for moral lessons?

I thought that WAS the reason Christian read their Bible!

It's supposed to be the "word of God"...That's what they believe!

Are you saying that the word of God has no moral value?

Transient

Well, what about the guy who picked up sticks in the desert on a sabbath?
He was murdered by god for doing so yet "Jesus" ate corn in the fields on the sabbath but was not executed by god for doing so.

Moral: sucks to be a peasant but you can't put a foot wrong if you are a god

Actually the whole of the old testament can be summed up as follows: it was written by and for the priest class so that they could maintain control of the people.

The new testament was written by the vatican so that they could maintain control of people.

Read it all in the context of a control mechanism and it all makes sense - it's all garbage.

Toto

I think that is what he is saying. Christians do read the Bible looking for moral lessons, but they have to misinterpret what they read, and even then can't find a good moral.