Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 06-29-2011, 08:26 AM

A pretty obvious example of disunity:

Hebrew scriptures (ie what Christians call, somewhat condescendingly ,as the "Old Testament")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 5:12

‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

And a little further on that the observance of the Sabbath (among other laws) are meant to be acted upon, not just words on a page (or stone)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 6:25

It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us.

And explicitly stating not to add to or take away from these commandments...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 4:2

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Yet here you are, saying that the NT obsoletes these kinds of commandments. Nowhere does the Hebrew scriptures indicate that these laws are temporary, only in effect until a Messiah comes. Not only does it not indicate that newer revelation can trump it, but it explicitly says that the commandments can't be added to or taken away.

This isn't just a matter of interpretation of a cloudy passage, the text is pretty darn clear.

simon kole · 06-29-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

A pretty obvious example of disunity:

Hebrew scriptures (ie what Christians call, somewhat condescendingly ,as the "Old Testament")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 5:12

‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

And a little further on that the observance of the Sabbath (among other laws) are meant to be acted upon, not just words on a page (or stone)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 6:25

It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us.

And explicitly stating not to add to or take away from these commandments...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deut 4:2

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Yet here you are, saying that the NT obsoletes these kinds of commandments. Nowhere does the Hebrew scriptures indicate that these laws are temporary, only in effect until a Messiah comes. Not only does it not indicate that newer revelation can trump it, but it explicitly says that the commandments can't be added to or taken away.

This isn't just a matter of interpretation of a cloudy passage, the text is pretty darn clear.

Do you acknowledge the principle of the whole Bible being correctly understood in the light of the whole Bible?

If not, I cannot address your examples.

schriverja · 06-29-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

A pretty obvious example of disunity:

Hebrew scriptures (ie what Christians call, somewhat condescendingly ,as the "Old Testament")

And a little further on that the observance of the Sabbath (among other laws) are meant to be acted upon, not just words on a page (or stone)...

And explicitly stating not to add to or take away from these commandments...

Yet here you are, saying that the NT obsoletes these kinds of commandments. Nowhere does the Hebrew scriptures indicate that these laws are temporary, only in effect until a Messiah comes. Not only does it not indicate that newer revelation can trump it, but it explicitly says that the commandments can't be added to or taken away.

This isn't just a matter of interpretation of a cloudy passage, the text is pretty darn clear.

Do you acknowledge the principle of the whole Bible being correctly understood in the light of the whole Bible?

If not, I cannot address your examples.

I understand some people appeal to more convenient passages to justify ignoring passages that are more inconvenient.

I also understand that when some people use phrases like "understanding the Bible correctly" they usually mean "ignore the plain text meaning, agree with my round-about interpretation that usually requires a liberal amount of writing my own meanings in between the lines".

But that aside, how do you reconcile the very plain passages I have cited with the fact that the NT disagrees with them?

schriverja · 06-29-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

This is where we begin to diverge. I think the NT stuff that comes along is an indication of evolution of thought within Judaism and the early forms of Christianity, not a new revelation to shed light on the OT. The OT makes sense without further illumination. It explicitly states that it is a permanent arrangement between God and his chosen people, the Israelites. It explicitly states that it is is not to be replaced (to use your word "obsoleted") or added to. The OT explicitly states that anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher (Deut. 13). That's why Judaism still exists today.

As do the Greek and the Armenians, whom Russia tried to extinguish by destroying millions of them.

Quote:

It (the blood rituals and slavery laws and bizarre rules about all sorts of things) just became harder to swallow for people that were living in a more and more advanced society. Paul was largely responsible for evolving Judaism into a Gentile-friendly movement. And that evolution has continued to this day. Protestantism (into 30,000+ denominations its important to note) evolved from Orthodoxy/Catholicism . Calvinism and Arminianism evolved from prior forms of Christianity, becoming a distinct "species" in the 16th century and later.

I don't that's a sign of new revelation, I think that is evidence that people are responsible for the characteristics and viewpoints of Christianity, not God. A charismatic guy like Paul, or Luther, or Calvin produced their own, very human takes on Christianity and convinced enough people that they're right to get their own sub-following. The divergence of the Christian "species" started pretty much from day 1 with the emergence of groups like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, and the like, now mostly extinct...

That's why a relatively static text can be used to justify slavery in one century and decry it in the next. Because society has changed not the book. That's why killing and torturing your neighbors over their religious belief can be justified via the Bible in one century, and dismissed in another century. People reinterpret "God" how they want, God doesn't reveal new things.

Was there a counterpoint here? I don't understand your response.

simon kole · 06-29-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

A pretty obvious example of disunity:

Hebrew scriptures (ie what Christians call, somewhat condescendingly ,as the "Old Testament")

And a little further on that the observance of the Sabbath (among other laws) are meant to be acted upon, not just words on a page (or stone)...

And explicitly stating not to add to or take away from these commandments...

Yet here you are, saying that the NT obsoletes these kinds of commandments. Nowhere does the Hebrew scriptures indicate that these laws are temporary, only in effect until a Messiah comes. Not only does it not indicate that newer revelation can trump it, but it explicitly says that the commandments can't be added to or taken away.

This isn't just a matter of interpretation of a cloudy passage, the text is pretty darn clear.

Do you acknowledge the principle of the whole Bible being correctly understood in the light of the whole Bible?

If not, I cannot address your examples.

I understand some people appeal to more convenient passages to justify ignoring passages that are more inconvenient.

I also understand that when some people use phrases like "understanding the Bible correctly" they usually mean "ignore the plain text meaning, agree with my round-about interpretation that usually requires a liberal amount of writing my own meanings in between the lines".

But that aside,

But that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Quote:

how do you reconcile the very plain passages I have cited with the fact that the NT disagrees with them?

Is that a yes or a no, on the principle regarding
the meaning of the older revelation in the OT being fully and correctly understood in the light of the newer revelation of the NT?

For example, does the NT doctrine of hell, which reveals there is no annihilation of the spirit, show the Biblical "contradiction" between hell and annihilation to be false?

I cannot address your questions apart from that principle, and in your own terms. Do you accept the principle?

simon kole · 06-29-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

This is where we begin to diverge. I think the NT stuff that comes along is an indication of evolution of thought within Judaism and the early forms of Christianity, not a new revelation to shed light on the OT. The OT makes sense without further illumination. It explicitly states that it is a permanent arrangement between God and his chosen people, the Israelites. It explicitly states that it is is not to be replaced (to use your word "obsoleted") or added to. The OT explicitly states that anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher (Deut. 13). That's why Judaism still exists today.

As do the Greek and the Armenians, whom Russia tried to extinguish by destroying millions of them.

Quote:

It (the blood rituals and slavery laws and bizarre rules about all sorts of things) just became harder to swallow for people that were living in a more and more advanced society. Paul was largely responsible for evolving Judaism into a Gentile-friendly movement. And that evolution has continued to this day. Protestantism (into 30,000+ denominations its important to note) evolved from Orthodoxy/Catholicism . Calvinism and Arminianism evolved from prior forms of Christianity, becoming a distinct "species" in the 16th century and later.

I don't that's a sign of new revelation, I think that is evidence that people are responsible for the characteristics and viewpoints of Christianity, not God. A charismatic guy like Paul, or Luther, or Calvin produced their own, very human takes on Christianity and convinced enough people that they're right to get their own sub-following. The divergence of the Christian "species" started pretty much from day 1 with the emergence of groups like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, and the like, now mostly extinct...

That's why a relatively static text can be used to justify slavery in one century and decry it in the next. Because society has changed not the book. That's why killing and torturing your neighbors over their religious belief can be justified via the Bible in one century, and dismissed in another century. People reinterpret "God" how they want, God doesn't reveal new things.

Was there a counterpoint here? I don't understand your response.

No counterpoint, just an observation.

schriverja · 06-29-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

I understand some people appeal to more convenient passages to justify ignoring passages that are more inconvenient.

I also understand that when some people use phrases like "understanding the Bible correctly" they usually mean "ignore the plain text meaning, agree with my round-about interpretation that usually requires a liberal amount of writing my own meanings in between the lines".

But that aside,

But that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Quote:

how do you reconcile the very plain passages I have cited with the fact that the NT disagrees with them?

Is that a yes or a no, on the principle regarding
the meaning of the older revelation in the OT being fully and correctly understood in the light of the newer revelation of the NT?

For example, does the NT doctrine of hell, which reveals there is no annihilation of the spirit, show the Biblical "contradiction" between hell and annihilation to be false?

I cannot address your questions apart from that principle, and in your own terms. Do you accept the principle?

I do not accept the principle, at least not without adequate justification. Remember this a board dedicated to advancing rationalism, correct? If you want to present an argument that indicates that you can only interpret older passages of the Bible in light of the whole Bible we can discuss it. As I see it, the passages I have cited here seem to be pretty black&white and they stand on their own. If they are not b&w, it should be easy to demonstrate how I have misunderstood them, whether or not I accept your unjustified claim about NT trumping the Hebrew Scriptures. I thought the Bible was a "unity of text", therefore the message should be consistent from the earlier texts to the later if this is true, correct? What Paul or other NT authors write shouldn't be at odd with the what the author of Deuteronomy wrote, correct?

I could grant that there could be ongoing revelation. The examples I am interested in are when later revelations directly contradict earlier revelation. The contradictions shouldn't be if there was a master author who had planned the whole text ahead of time, only to reveal it piecemeal like the arc of a TV or movie series. But that isn't what we have. We have an anthology which has pretty specific history and detail regarding the Jewish Law, then much later we have (primarily) a single charismatic guy, Paul, which says "all that doesn't matter, even though it said it was permanent, because Jesus took care of all of it". It doesn't fit the verbiage of the OT...

schriverja · 06-29-2011, 10:36 AM

Simon, it occurs to me that you have presented a couple of hypotheses in this thread. One, that that the Bible has basic Logical Consistency (posted here). The second one, that the Bible is unified (posted here).

The interesting thing is that it seems that you haven't looked for passages that would falsify these two assertions. It seems you've only looked for passages that would confirm them.

When I (and many others) have presented passages that would directly challenge these two hypotheses, you have done a lot of energetic down-playing of those examples. But have you actually considered the objections? Have you acknowledged and challenged your own assumptions*?

*anticipating pointing the same accusation back at me, I acknowledge that at one time I did believe that the Bible was basically unified and logically coherent. I was a very dedicated, baptized evangelical who spent hours each week in personal and group Bible study. Once I realized that I didn't apply the same sort of rigorous scrutiny towards my faith (at that time) as I did in my job (as a development engineer) or towards other belief systems, I realized that I had been succumbing to confirmation bias in a big way without even realizing it.

Sheshbazzar · 06-29-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING Covenant. (Gen 17:13)

Quote:

Exd 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and you shall keep it a feast to YHWH throughout your generations; you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance FOREVER.

Quote:

And you shall observe The Feast of Unleavened Bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day in your generations by an ordinance FOREVER. (Ex 12:17)

Quote:

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily My Sabbaths you shall keep: for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I am Yahweh that doth sanctify you (Ex 13:31)

Quote:

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep The Sabbath, to observe The Sabbath throughout their generations, for a PERPETUAL COVENANT.
(Ex 31:16)

Quote:

It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel FOREVER: for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on The Seventh Day, He rested, and was refreshed. (Ex 31:17)

Quote:

And this shall be a statute FOREVER unto you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: (Lev 16:29)

Quote:

It shall be a Sabbath of Rest unto you, and you shall afflict your souls, by a statute FOREVER. (Lev 16:31)

Quote:

And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that you have brought an offering unto your Elohim: it shall be a statute FOREVER throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (Lev 23:14)

Quote:

And you shall proclaim on the selfsame day, [b]that it may be an holy convocation unto you: you shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute FOREVER in all your dwellings throughout your generations. (Lev 23:21)

Quote:

You shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute FOREVER throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (Lev 23:31)

Quote:

And ye shall keep it a Feast unto Yahweh seven days in the year. It shall be a statute FOREVER in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. (Lev 23:41)

Quote:

The Law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: (Psa 19:7)

Quote:

The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart; The Commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes; (Psa 19:8)

Quote:

For the Commandment is a lamp; and The Law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: (Pro 6:23)

Quote:

Keep The Commandments and keep your life; despising them leads to death. (Pro 19:16)

Quote:

Remember The Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, With the statutes and judgments. (Mal 4:4)

Quote:

Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

.. If thou wilt enter into life, Keep The Commandments. (Matt 19:16-17)

The question was what does it take to obtain "eternal life"? The answer (suprise) was "Keep The Commandments."

Quote:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which Keep The Commandments of Elohim, (Rev 12:17)

Quote:

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that Keep The Commandments of Elohim,....(Rev 14:12)

These are only a small portion of the verses that express the lasting permanance of The Law. "throughout your generations".
The generations of Israel are still going on, and "forever" has not ever ended.

Now simon tell me your interpretation of the NT that does not contradict these verses.

.

Sheshbazzar · 06-29-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

for example, does the NT doctrine of hell, which reveals there is no annihilation of the spirit, show the Biblical "contradiction" between hell and annihilation to be false?

There is no such NT 'doctrine' of hell within The NT.

This so called 'doctrine' is the theological invention of a sick minded, superstitious religion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2011, 10:36 AM	#278
schriverja Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Western Connecticut Posts: 1,545	Simon, it occurs to me that you have presented a couple of hypotheses in this thread. One, that that the Bible has basic Logical Consistency (posted here). The second one, that the Bible is unified (posted here). The interesting thing is that it seems that you haven't looked for passages that would falsify these two assertions. It seems you've only looked for passages that would confirm them. When I (and many others) have presented passages that would directly challenge these two hypotheses, you have done a lot of energetic down-playing of those examples. But have you actually considered the objections? Have you acknowledged and challenged your own assumptions? anticipating pointing the same accusation back at me, I acknowledge that at one time I did believe that the Bible was basically unified and logically coherent. I was a very dedicated, baptized evangelical who spent hours each week in personal and group Bible study. Once I realized that I didn't apply the same sort of rigorous scrutiny towards my faith (at that time) as I did in my job (as a development engineer) or towards other belief systems, I realized that I had been succumbing to confirmation bias in a big way without even realizing it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.