You completely ignored the parts of the article discussed in my post ? You then falsely claim that the Author believes the Bible reflects a conversation with God. This is painfully disingenuous. The first thing the author does is revisit the contradiction - outlining that it clearly exists - and not "resolving it" as you falsely claim. http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/go...tament-part-2-possible-solutions#.WZ23zSiGPIV Then the author talks about resolution of this dilemma. What part of the above did you not understand the first time round ? The resolution to the dilemma is that the God of the OT is a representation of what people at that time believed and "NOT .. as you falsely claim" a direct conversation with God. Why do you find it so necessary to engage in such mind bending denial ? Seriously I am very puzzled by this ?
Since it seems to be you who have a problem being called out with the truth, take your own advice. It would make all of us much happier.
There is a big difference between you and me - I read all 3 of his articles, and the letters he wrote in the comments of the articles. You did not. I take his entire argument, you take the parts you like and disregard the rest. Spend some time reading his articles and letters. He addresses your issues.
I read all three articles and the author agrees with me. You on the other hand are making false claims about what the author states and trying to wiggle out of what his conclusions are: 1) There is a contradiction between the violent God of the Israelite's (YHWH) and the loving God of Jesus. 2) The way to reconcile this contradiction is. From Part 2 "But if we recognize the Bible’s humanity—that it was written by human beings whose understanding and experience of God was shaped by their culture, their theological assumptions, and the time in which they lived—then we might be able to say, “In this case, the biblical authors were representing what they believed about God rather than what God actually inspired them to say.” What part of the above do you not understand ? In Part 3 the author says the same thing He gives two options: 1) If we take the Bible literally then God was a violent nasty God which contradicts with the God of Jesus (the contradiction case is made in Part 1) 2) The second option is to view the Bible as a work written by man and as such reflecting the "beliefs" about God and not the God they sought to serve. You can not deal with the Author's conclusions and so you are making false claims about what is said. You claimed this author does not say there is a contradiction. Indeed - he not only says this, he restates this over and over. You claimed that the author's resolution of the dilemma created by this contradiction resolves the contradiction. The author's resolution (given above) does nothing of the sort and thus your claim is both disingenuous and false. The author's resolution is 1) if you accept the Bible is the literal word of God that you then must accept this contradiction. That the violent, genocidal, xenophobic depiction of the God YHWH in the OT contradicts the depiction of the God that Jesus is speaking for. 2) That the depiction of God in the OT is based on the human imagination rather than being an accurate depiction of God. (which is exactly the same as what I gave as an option)
Hamilton states there is a contradiction, and then he resolves it to his satisfaction - meaning in his mind there is no contradiction. Because you still see a contradiction does not mean Hamilton still sees a contradiction. You are incorrect in your claim of Hamiltons resolution. Hamilton states "Who is claiming that God is full of faults? God is perfect. I'm not even claiming that God changes." Here is Hamiltons resolution, in his own words (he mentions his book on the subject of violence in the Old Testament) (my highlights in red): I also lay out in the book the criteria we might use, based upon Jesus' own words, to interpret those scriptures that seem to stand in contradiction to what we learn about God through Jesus. The fact that the biblical authors often are influenced by the world in which they live and that influence leads them to write things that don't reflect God's timeless will seems clear to me. Slavery, the subordination of women, polygamy, concubinage, genocide and host of other things are included in scripture as though they were acceptable practices, yet today we teach that they are not acceptable to God. We don't believe God changed his mind, so what changed? My answer is that human beings and society changed and that the cultural assumptions and values that were found in the Old Testament must be measured and interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word. As I wrote previously, Hamilton believes that the Bible reflects a conversation with God in which God provided what was appropriate for humanity at the time. As humanity evolved socially, Gods message evolved ending with the final message of Jesus Christ. That's why Hamilton concludes all the Old Testament must be seen through the lens of Jesus, with 20/20 hindsight. Hamilton absolutely believes he has resolved the issue.
You are in denial. I posted directly from Hamilton's three articles and you can not bear to address his words. Hamilton states directly that either one accepts the contradiction ... or .. that that what is written about God in the OT reflects mans imagination and not what God is really like. This neither resolves the contradiction.
Excellent posts in these threads. Good job. They're a rarity in this forum, and as always one has to wade through a dozen plus ignorant trolling trash to get to them. They also aid in debating the myth that Christians aren't supposed to defend themselves or go to war against their enemies that are bent of destroying them, also a falsehood based on taking a couple of verses out of context, mostly in the usual lame attempts at smearing them. I'm saving some of your references and sources. Thank you for the genuine discussion.
Typical Bible Borg response. "Taking scriptures out of context". Show me how genesis ch. 6 does not contradict ch. 7 in context.
He does resolve the issue. His resolution is to say that the OT depiction of God is based on man made invention .. that what they wrote reflected the cultural norms of the time rather than being "inspired". In other words the OT depiction of God is myth.
That is not Hamiltons conclusion - that is part of his development of the problem statement. At one point he states there are 2 paths forward: 1- one for those who believe the Bible accurately reflects God's word, 2 - the second for those who believe the Bible reflects the biblical authors views. How do we resolve the moral and theological dilemmas that confront us in these Old Testament texts? As I see it, there are two broad paths forward. The first—and the only option as I see it, for those who hold to verbal, plenary inspiration—is to accept that these commands and stories accurately capture what God said, what God did, and what God commanded his people to do. Then the task is to explain how the character of God revealed in these seemingly harsh and violent texts is consistent with the character of God revealed by Jesus Christ. ............................ But if we recognize the Bible’s humanity—that it was written by human beings whose understanding and experience of God was shaped by their culture, their theological assumptions, and the time in which they lived—then we might be able to say, “In this case, the biblical authors were representing what they believed about God rather than what God actually inspired them to say.” If we use Jesus’s words, and his great commandments, as a colander, we’ll see that these violent passages in the Hebrew Bible contradict not only these great commands, but the very life and ministry of Jesus who was God’s unmitigated Word. Hamilton ultimately modifes #2 (dropping the part that the Bile was the biblical authors words) to concludes the Bible is Gods word - Gods word tailored to the understanding of the people who received it at that time - but the writing was influenced by the biblical authors. Read the comments sections of his articles. Nowhere in any of his writing does Hamilton make the claim that the Bible is a myth. Adam Hamilton is a Methodist pastor who runs a "mega-church" (The United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas). Its a slightly liberal church, but definitely a Christian church which holds the usual Christian values. Obviously not a man who will write a book concluding the Bible (or even the Old Testament) and Christianity are a myth.
Your 1 and 2 is exactly what I stated previously ... and you railed "NO NO NO" Finally you are catching on though which is good. For those that believe (1) the contradiction is not resolved and Hamilton makes this clear. There is no way to reconcile the warrior genocidal God of the OT with the Loving God of Jesus. The contradiction is not resolved and nor is the dilemma for the literalist - which is why you are having such issues. For those that believe (2) the contradiction is not resolved. The contradiction still exists but the dilemma is resolved. The OT depiction of God still contradicts with the NT depiction of God. This Dilemma is resolved however by stating that the depiction in the OT is not an accurate depiction of God. I did not say that the whole OT was said to be Myth ... just the depiction of God - and parts related to this that are in contradiction with the NT depiction of God. Hamilton states clearly - as you intimate in 2 - the the depiction of God in the OT was based on the cultural bias of the people at the time. This means that this depiction was not "inspired" not from God . . not accurate. It was based on their made up beliefs about what God might be like = Myth. Who cares what the comments section says ? I am assuming you are referring to readers comments. Hamilton does not modify the part where the Bible was the biblical authors words ? Why are you making things up. Part #3 restates the "based on cultural bias not inspired narrative" and adds to it. Nor do Hamilton's comments in #2 deviate from this position. For example: It was the people that wrote the Books of the OT and not God. These people made mistakes .. and not God. What do you think he is saying here ? He continues since you seem to have trouble understanding ... What part of ... Everything they wrote about God is not correct .... are you not understanding ? If not everything they wrote about God was correct ... what do you call it ? (Hint - Myth - made up folklore ... which is exactly what we find in "some" parts of the Bible). This does not mean that the whole of the Bible is Myth ... It does however mean that the Book had many human hands over many years write, edit, interpolate and so on ... and some took considerable artistic license. There is this duality that you are not getting. Sure there may have been people who were "inspired" ... moved by the spirit .. had some connection to the Godhead .. but they were also people of their times and this got included into what they were writing. He then once again points out the unavoidable contradiction. "Did God change ? .. or did human understanding of God change" If God does not change ... then the OT depiction of God is in Contradiction with the NT depiction as only one of these depictions can be true. Rather than resolve this contradiction (as you falsely claim he does) .... Hamilton restates this contradiction. If it were not for this obvious contradiction ... there would be no dilemma. It is the dilemma that is resolved and not the contradiction.
So yu are fine with people picking and choosing what they want to believe, as long as YOU approve. Got it.
I'm not a 'bible Borg', whatever that's supposed to mean, but I did spend a couple of minutes searching for a picture book of some kind for you, but no luck finding one for complete illiterates, just some with cartoons that still required a basic level of literacy, so sorry, you'll just have to learn to read if you want people to help you.
For those in the Peanut Gallery with a genuine intellectual interest in the last particular topic re Genesis 6 and 7, there are no contradictions, just a lack of intellectual capacity and scholarship on the part of the trolls claiming there is. All that is needed is some explanation of common literary devices, like this one, used frequently in biblical writings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropopathism The book of Job is particularly noteworthy as an example of this literary device. The 'See also' list is also enlightening re the use of this technique. If you want a highly detailed text on the logic and literary meanings of many biblical stories, then Thomas Aquinas' Summa Thelogica, mostly vols. 2 and 3 will give a great backgrounder, and also the Summa is a great text for studying Aristotelian debate and logic for anyone, believer and agnostic alike. The alleged 'contradictions' between old and new testaments are purely imaginary or dishonest rubbish.
You don't have the capacity to determine such things. You've made that as clear as day in this thread.
The comments section is important - in it people ask Hamilton pointed questions, and Hamilton responds. Read the posts. Hamilton clearly states "we find the possibility that the violence of Scripture is a reflection of the values and the theological and moral vision of some of its human authors, not of the God they sought to serve." I have not misrepresented Hamiltons opinion at all. I clearly stated (even in the post you responded to) ".....but the writing was influenced by the biblical authors. " That concept is reflected in the web site of Hamiltons church. I mentioned his church was slightly liberal - that's because while he maintains all of the usual Christian beliefs, he does not believe in the inerrancy of the bible but that there are places where the human authors let earthly influences taint Gods word (in the Old Testament). If you mean that there are human influences, then that's correct. If you are moving towards your old claim that the Bible (and Christianity) is a man made fairy tale, then that's not correct. If there are parts of the Old Testament that are influenced by the writers, those authors are reflecting indirectly the message God gave to them, so even those parts are not man made fantasy. Hamiltons conclusion is that: 1 - the Old Testament was inspired by God 2 - God tailored the message to the culture receiving the message to make it understandable and implementable in those cultural conditions 3 - the writing is influenced by the human writers 4 - Gods message culminated in Jesus 5 - full understanding of the Old Testament requires viewing it with 20/20 hindsight from the perspective of Jesus teaching. The contradiction is the dilemma. If the dilemma is resolved, then the contradiction is resolved. Your solution (and Hamiltons) is to drop the concept of Biblical inerrancy. Go to your view that parts of the Old Testament are man made fantasy - in other words, you can drop parts of the bible that you think are fantasy, and the remainder is Gods word. So, drop the violent parts of the Old Testament, that makes it compatible with Jesus peaceful teachings. Then drop the parts of Jesus teaching that contradict a total "turn the other cheek" philosophy, and drop Jesus statements that declare the Old Testament is valid. Contradiction resolved. So even you should be claiming there is resolution. But that's Hamiltons resolution, other people resolve it differently and do not drop Biblical inerrancy.
Learn to read. This is discussing Adam Hamiltons resolution of Old Testament violence and Jesus teachings. You are making yourself more and more a fool.
This thread is you discussing your OPINION of what was said, not the truth about what was said. Learn to think for yourself and add a little comprehension to the mix. You have already proven beyond any doubt how much of fool you are. Try to come back from the edge.
I quoted from Hamilton's comments section and Hamilton (and your points) in the previous post were the same as the one's I initially made. If you mean that there are human influences, then that's correct. If you are moving towards your old claim that the Bible (and Christianity) is a man made fairy tale, then that's not correct. If there are parts of the Old Testament that are influenced by the writers, those authors are reflecting indirectly the message God gave to them, so even those parts are not man made fantasy. 1) I agree that Hamilton believes that "some" the people writing were inspired by their belief in God .. and perhaps by God directly. He clearly states that some of the writing was not "inspired" ... and I quoted the exact places where he does this ... quotes that you have ignored. 2) where does Hamilton say this ? Where is your support for this claim. I supported every one of my claims with quote's from Hamilton. 3) Agreed ... these human writers wrote according to what their "beliefs" were at the time. You keep repeating this over and over like repetition will make it true. It does not. The contradiction is not resolved by Hamilton stating that the God of the OT is a figment of the writers cultural beliefs (imagination). This does not resolve the contradiction between the depiction of God in the OT and the depiction of the God of Jesus. All it does is make the case that the depiction given in the OT is false and that we should then adhere to the depiction in the NT. If one depiction of God is false, and the other is true, this is then by definition a contradiction. That some people delude themselves by ignoring the obvious contradiction - pretending it does not exist - may be a way for these people to people to resolve the contradiction for themselves but, this does not change the fact that the contradiction exists. Dropping the parts of the OT that are violent does not mean one has to drop the NT teachings of Jesus. One can drop the OT and still maintain the NT. This is what Hamilton's resolution is. He argues that the NT narrative is not an accurate depiction of God and goes on to explain why. Hamilton is arguing that the violent, genocidal and irrational depiction of God in the OT is not factual. This is then "made up fantasy". ... sorry but it is what it is.
While Moses was taking a forty day vacation on the mountain getting the Ten Commandments his brother Aaron was busy making a golden calf idol for the local yokels. When Moses came down and saw what was going on he flew into one of his homicidal maniac rages and had his henchmen kill about 3,000 people. So why did Moses ignore his brother Aaron, who had made the idol in violation of the previous law that banned such behavior?
lol what??? You're gibbering again. So you can't address what I said re literary techniques. We already know that.
Yeshua told his posse that they would receive a hundredfold of the things they had given up to follow him. He mentioned such things as houses, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, wives and children, and lands. So what good are all of those things if there are no marriages in heaven and everyone is going to be cooped up in the golden cube on a waterless planet for all of eternity?
You are completely wrong in one very major item - Hamilton does not write anywhere that "the God of the OT is a figment of the writers cultural beliefs (imagination)." Some writers, in some parts of their writing, being influenced by their personal or cultural ideas does not in any way equate to making up God. You seem to be in an extreme position that if anything in the Old Testament is not exactly the word of God, then the entire Bible is false. Hamilton does not come anywhere close to that conclusion. You should consider one major check to your thinking - Hamilton is a dedicated Christian, a pastor, who does believe in the huge majority of the Old Testament. Would such a person make the conclusions you attribute to him? Read his writings outside of these 3 we have been discussing. Hamilton only questions some select segments of the Old Testament.
