How do people who believe the Bible to be inerrant reconcile the Old Testmament version of God with the New Testament’s version?
They don’t often try. Rather, they cherry pick. They tell the Noah story by focusing on God’s “saving” of Noah’s family, rather than firmly acknowledging God’s decision to commit cold senseless genocide regarding everyone else (even the plants and non-human animials). With that little move, the OT God does seem a bit more like kind and gentle Jesus, who they portray by downplaying the fact that Jesus invented hell. In the old days, when God was angry with you, you just died. Bang! That’s it. Since the NT, mere death isn’t sufficient punishment. You need to be tortured in hell forever. But enough of these undeniable conclusions based on a detached reading of the Bible!
Here’s a ribald cartoon that teases out those subtle personality differences between the OT and NT Gods.
Hate to quibble, Erich, but Jesus did not "invent" hell. Hell comes right out of Zoroastrianism, which predates Jesus by at least a millennium, and may yet be older still. It dominated much of Asia minor, into the Levant, and has many elements clearly "borrowed" by most other religions, including Judaism and later christianity, including a heaven and a hell, a "good" god (Ohrmasd) and a satan (Ahriman, also known as the Lord of Lies) whose kingdom was hell.
In Zoroastrianism, after death the deeds of the deceased are recorded in a great ledger by Mithra and Rashnu. (Ohrmazd–also known as Ahura Mazda, lived "above"–in heaven–with his Seven Immortal Ones, angels. Sound familiar?) At the foot of the underworld is Chinvat (Acountant's Bridge) where a reckoning is made. If positive, the soul is guided to the House of Song; if negative (even if by three tiny acts of wrongdoing) the soul falls into Hell. If the balance is even, there is limbo–Hammistagan, where the soul will wait until the Apocalypse.
Zoroastrianism is the first known apolcalyptic religion. In the End Time, Ohrmazd and Ahriman will battle it out–Good vs Evil. A savior–Soshyans–born of a virgin impregnated with the seed of Zoroaster–will harrow hell. The tale of resurrection follows pretty much as we have it in christian theology.
Zoroastrianism can take credit for most of the major components we recognize as "christian". During the fist couple centuries C.E. it competed directly with christianity in a dilute form known as Mithraism. The Mithraists incorporated a pagan ritual of the slain bull (Zeus) and really lost out because of their belief that women had no souls. But otherwise…
Just wanted to point out that kindly Jesus was reestablishing in Jewish tradition an older idea. By the time Jesus came around, Judaism was pretty much done with the concept of Hell, though it was never really a big deal with them. Jesus brought it back. With a vengeance.
But it wasn't his idea.
Jason: "With a vengeance." Good turn of a phrase!
I keep having this same nightmare. Many of the people who hold the most power, wealth, and fame in the world (America) are in fact hiding behind the Christian Far Right. This enables many cunning individuals to act as if they were Christians (but actually agnostic or atheist), at which time they adopt the notion of being "on a mission from God" (Blues Brothers fan here, sorry couldn't help it). Thus, enabling them to act out atrocities of violence and greed and waste and destruction while projecting the image of Happy times! as Borat would say. Choosing to live in the "agnostic" role many of us are seen as "moderates" compared to the Fundamentalists, and therefore, our everyday mini-atrocities are virtually indetectable in comparison.
Scary to see how I could just act like a Christian, and in fact do, in certain company in real life, like my parking attendant, and my rabbi(t). The potential to earn money from Christian faith is immense. My mind is really wandering now but, if anybody wants to start a Christian figurine website, I can get you some merchandise at *Indonesian prices*. I guess that is the last resort though.
Answering this question is like answering the question, "When are you going to stop beating your wife?". It's based on a false concept, that admittedly, some christians hold.
God doesn't change. As Jason acknowledged, these false concepts about God's character are borrowed by "the congregation" from pagan beliefs; carried in by converts {not renounced} or in some cases adopted specifically to win converts to the religion.
We are to have no other gods {rulemakers} before Him. Inquiring of another god while at the same time pretending to follow YHWH is idolatry, and one of the main reasons for the mass confusion we see all around us.
Moses wrote, "I am setting in front of you today life and prosperity, death and adversity, in that I command you to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, statutes, and judgments, that you may live and multiply.”
He was telling the people that to violate {or bastardize} God’s laws was the way of death. In the NT, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.” There was no judgment of God’s law that even implied torture in a literal hell for any sin. The penalty was merely death.
Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for the sin of the whole world. Jesus did not have to burn in hell. Not even for a moment—much less for eternity! He paid the full penalty for sin by dying on the cross, not by suffering for eternity. If never-ending torture in hell were really the penalty for sin, then Jesus would still be there! Yet we find that Jesus was only required to be dead for three days.
God is not so unjust as to torture people for being ignorant. The nature of the “fire” is defined by the divine law itself, and the duration of the judgment is limited.
Larry: Go take a deep breath, clear your mind and try to read the Old Testament as would had you not had a lifetime of indoctrination. The OT God, though occasionally decent, acts like a vicious tyrant. As Grumpypilgrim sometimes writes, the OT God loved us like an abusive parent.
Here are 858 episodes of senseless violence portrayed in the OT. This is not about Jason Rayl–you are twisting his words. Jason is not a Bible cherry-picker. You are. Don't call the violent portrayal of the OT God slanderous–this portrayal comes (in the system all fundamentalists) from "God's own words"?
Omniscence and Omnipotence are capable of much better behavior than this. If He were real, He should have been put away in some giant prison somewhere so that he couldn't continue with his abusive, intolerant, mass-murdering ways.
So go find a quiet part of your house, turn on your reading lamp, and give the OT the same sort of detached reading you would give to the sacred writings of anyone ELSE's religion.
Larry,
My point in bringing up the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and later christianity was not that the true faith was polluted by outside influences, but that all religions have about the same claim to "originality" and validity. In other words, religion has always been a work in progress. Most later, after successfully supplanting older religions (and stealing from them wholesale) then take a "not invented here" attitutude and disavow the association.
Very human.
Hardly divine.
Jason: I am not saying that's why you brought up Zoroastrianism, I'm simply pointing out that many pagan ideas were incorporated into what became known as Judaism, a religion. Judaism is not what Moses wrote about. The adversary used {and is still using} many means to lead the people of Israel astray and cause them to break the covenant that they willingly entered into. The Law was either a blessing or a curse. Many of the Israelites {that perhaps didn't want any part of it} wandered off, many other people of other nations joined with Israel in keeping Covenant with God.
Erich: Your premise was that the God of the Old Covenant is some how different from the God of the New Covenant. Maybe you should go find a quiet place in your home and sit down and read the parts of the NT that talk about Jesus' return when He sets up His Kingdom on this planet and the fate of those who have rejected mercy and chosen judgement. God was merciful to many in the OT, and yes, the wicked, hard-hearted and idolators were warned but they ignored it. Honest seekers have a period of grace. Nothing has changed.
Larry: I disagree with your assertion that I am claiming that the OT and NT Gods are different. I think the OT and NT Gods both came from the same origin: they were both created in the image and likeness of Man.
I HAVE read some of the Bible passages you refer to. I am not persuaded by fear or threats of hell, Larry. Sorry. That tactic doesn't work on me. That tactic works better on little children, which is why fundamentalists start pumping them full of terror at a young age so that they will "believe" when they are adults.
Don't forget that God also killed thousands of innocents in the OT. Really, before you come back to this site to post more comments go back to THOSE passages and acknowledge them: See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=732 to get you started. Please also acknowledge if anyone else had done what "God" did (according to the OT), you'd call them sadistic murderers and the word "love" would never occur to you.
Erich, I'm not trying to "persuade" you, I'm answering your question. When two parties or ideas need to be "reconciled" it means two parties or ideas are at odds or are estranged. You identified a contradiction which exists in the minds of some people, alleging that believers will not acknowledge it.
I acknowledge the acts you cite but maintain that there is no contradiction. The reason for the alleged contradiction is your refusal to acknowledge God as Creator. The acts of the Creator are a function of His Sovereignity, which you deny. Either the acts occured or they did not. If they did not occur, there is nothing to reconcile. If they did occur we should consider the reason for them and acknowledge that they "were written for our learning". Any reconciliation must occur between you and God rather than between the OT version of God and the NT version of God.
You claim that Jesus "invented" hell. You claim that "since the NT mere death isn't sufficient punishment" and "You need to be tortured in hell forever". I deny your "undeniable conclusions". These doctrines originated in pagan systems and were brought into christianity by men who should have known better.
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2127...
Larry:
"These doctrines originated in pagan systems and were brought into christianity by men who should have known better."
Please elaborate. Are you saying that Christianity, and possibly god's word as recorded in the bible, has been altered by men for their own purposes?
"Either the acts occured or they did not. "
Well, fair enough. Since the Flood depicted in Genesis did not occur, I guess that about wraps it up for Yahweh.
Most of the errors in religion are about things the Bible does not address where men make assumptions and then teach them as doctrine. Other situations are where translators do not understand what is being said and make determinations to use a word from the new language that does not carry the idea through that is being taught. Many religions have developed their own versions of the Bible which denominates the body of Christ. People hear things which makes no sense to them and assume that God has said things that make no sense or just refuse to believe in God at all. To assume that the truth cannot be known is to add error to error.
The verses that are usually quoted to prove never-ending punishment are mistranslations of the original text. The word for "eternal" and "everlasting" in the NT is the Greek word eonian, which means "pertaining to an EON {age}." God's judgements pertain to a specific age in the future. It will end at the final Jubilee when all are brought into the glory of God, as He promised. God's Law treats all sin as a debt, but it also treats all debt as temporary, limited by the Jubilee. With God there is no such thing as perpetual debt.
The link above will show how Augustine and Jerome changed disipline into punishment. Also see http://www.gods-kingdom.org/if_god_could_save_everyone.h...
Larry: You're not listening. You've still got to explain 858 episodes of senseless violence. You're explanations regarding the nuances of the term for "everlasting" and "punishment" just aren't moving me. Why? Because your translational nuances don't show up in popular Bibles or commonly attended churches, they are barely relevant to my original point.
They are relevant because that is your starting point. You start with the idea that God is unjust in His actions and carry it forward to conclude that such injustice is neither Omnipotent or Omniscient.
The Bible establishes that God is the Creator of all things. Most people believe this, but not what it implies. It means that God OWNS all things by right of creation. This is why God told Moses in Lev. 25:23, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine.” In other words, under Bible law, God holds the right of eminent domain. As landlord He evicted the Canaanites for gross sins and gave leases {inheritances} to the families of Israel and told them that they did not have the right to sell their property in perpetuity.
[edited for length – admin]
What you call "senseless violence" was in fact the retribution upon senseless evil that men were perpetrating upon each other. They lost their lives, but NOT for eternity. Here is your disconnect – you see no justice in people {some of whom were too young to be directly responsible} being taken out of existence {your idea, not mine} for sin, I suppose because you don't feel it is very serious, without any recourse.
Shit happens. Own you part, God owns His. Before this is all over He will make it right. The Canaanites will get their opportunity stand before God and make their case for their innocense.
Larry you are a piece of work. Larry could teach the politicians a thing or two with his ability to explain away ANYTHING. In fact, I'm not sure if I want him on this side of the *mason dixon* line. Larry, live long and prosper in Heaven with the Muslims and Mormons, just keep that crap out of my life!
Larry says:
"The Bible establishes that God is the Creator of all things. Most people believe this, but not what it implies."
I agree totally. Most people do not follow the implications of their chosen philosophies.
"It means that God OWNS all things by right of creation."
Again, this is consistent. The ultimate copyright.
"What you call “senseless violence” was in fact the retribution upon senseless evil that men were perpetrating upon each other"
This is the Marshall Tito philosophy of government—you will all get along or I will kill every one of you.
I don't have a quibble with Larry's logic. Where it breaks down for me is that I frankly think this is all B.S. None of it is based on reality, none of it is true. Your god doesn't play fair because he never tells anyone why he's killing them. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. Those folks were living their lives, fat dumb and happy, and he wiped them out (according to Scripture) because they were sinners. But nowhere does it say that he posted an edict, made a pronouncement, paid a visit to the city elders to explain his position—nada. This is an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" defense for an otherwise unconscienable act.
But as you say, god (as written) doesn't have to play fair. He made it all, it's his show, he can do what he wants. Einstein was wrong–he does play dice.
Given that, though—since the jury is packed, the verdict a predetermined given, why should anyone pay the least attention? It's like worrying about the coconuts because the tsunami is coming–you can't stop it and you can't stockpile against its coming, so you might as well enjoy them.
People can devise–and live by–consistently ethics and moral philosophies far more sophisticated and beneficial than OT Yahweh. In short, human beings, despite our shortfalls, are more ethical, fairer, and consistently moral than your god–which is why I think all these stories are holdovers from older religions that tried to explain thunderstorms in terms of Zeus playing ninepins, and nothing about them is real. I reject it because it makes no sense to me.
But I will grant you the consistency of your premise and your view, which in a way is refreshing. I respect that. I just find it all so much bullshit (not your fault, of course).
Larry,
You certainly have stirred up some controversy!
I am struggling to understand something. You write "Other situations are where translators do not understand what is being said and make determinations to use a word from the new language that does not carry the idea through that is being taught. Many religions have developed their own versions of the Bible which denominates the body of Christ."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that there are errors in the bible that are intentional and unintentional? Are you also saying that you are aware of these errors and can see through them to the truth of god's plan?
Here's what I don't understand…how can you be sure that there aren't other errors which you aren't aware of which has led you to accept things in the bible that were not intended (by god) to be there?
P.S. Please forgive Scholar's rudeness. He does not speak for all of us doubters.
If "more ethical, fairer, and consistently moral" "people can devise–and live by–consistently ethics and moral philosophies far more sophisticated and beneficial than" God, why do you say the Bible was made by people? Or, if you are describing the abilities of moderns, how did we become so wise? When will we begin devising and living by {by-living} this wonderful philosophy?
I don't understand how you can judge a system of ethics that you have never seen in practice. You have never even read about God's commandments and statutes being practiced to any degree, because it has never been done. The critiques I have seen here of God's judgments show an incredible ignorance of, and in fact a misrepresenation of God's character. And now exhibited is an equally incredible faith in man's ability to self-govern, despite the evidence that something is terribly amiss, and growing worse by the day.
"This is the Marshall Tito philosophy of government—you will all get along or I will kill every one of you." = another misrepresentation. God's Law is based on restitution, not punishment. A person that murdered someone could not restore the life he had taken so his life was forfeit. If this rule was consistently followed, murder would soon cease. "Because sentence against an evil work is not exucuted speedily, therefore the hearts of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Can you come up with a better rule to deal with murder than this?
"Are you saying that there are errors in the bible that are intentional and unintentional?" I am saying there are errors in VERSIONS of the bible that are intentional and unintentional. James calls the scriptures "the perfect law of liberty". When you take something perfect and change one element of it, it ceases to be perfect. Only the original autographs of the apostles and prophets are inspired. But fortunatly God has not quit speaking to His people.
"Are you also saying that you are aware of these errors and can see through them to the truth of god’s plan?" I am aware of some of them. As our scholar friend noticed, I am a piece of work, just not a finished piece of work. No lightening bolt came out of the sky and imparted anything to me. The truth will set you free. I am in the process of being set free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which bind us and make us slaves to the flesh, the world and the pride of life. The more I learn about what God is doing in the earth, the more I stand in awe of His wisdom.
"…how can you be sure that there aren’t other errors which you aren’t aware of which has led you to accept things in the bible that were not intended (by god) to be there?" I don't know everything, unlike some of God's detractors. I have not set up an idol of God that never changes because it is already perfect. My God is a consuming fire. The fiery law consumes the dross and leaves what is pure.
"I don’t understand how you can judge a system of ethics that you have never seen in practice. You have never even read about God’s commandments and statutes being practiced to any degree, because it has never been done."
That's a pretty bold statement, to quote John Travolta. "God's system" has been tried and retried. I could name the Albigensians, for one, who had a system about as close as you could get to an ideal, but the King of France and the Pope didn't like it, so we'll never know how long it would have lasted. There were many communal experiments in this country that tried it–and failed.
As to other systems…I suppose I should ask if you count Levitical law as part of God's law. The Ten Commandments are pretty straightforward, albeit loose enough in construction to leave a lot of room for interpretation (for instance, when is "killing" okay—clearly there were condoned instances back then, so the question is relevant).
If you count Leviticus and Deuteronomy, well…I can think of a number of systems that don't kill people over sex. Legally that is. I can think of any number of systems that don't condone slavery. I can think of any number of systems that don't operate exclusively on a spoils system. Religious tolerance is a big problem with Levitical law. And since we've figured out how to cook properly, I can think of many systems that don't condemn people for their diet. It's not hard, it just depends on whether you think treating each other right is more important than following some arcane rules that may have worked on the tribal level, in specific instances, but with changes in circumstance and technology–and science, but that's neither here nor there—don't pertain anymore.
As I said in another post, population growth always outstrips the capacity for ideal behavior. That one injunction–go forth, be fruitful, and multiply–has done more harm over six thousand years than all the rest put together, simply because it was open-ended, nonspecific, and indifferent to consequence.
But you might want to actually study other legal and ethical systems before calling me on this. Start with one we (Americans) thoroughly destroyed: the Six Nations of the Iroquois. Worked marvelously well until christians showed up.
But it was…how shall I say it?…different.
Okay, so finally gatomjp and Larry J Carter are discussing the actual topic of the Who Changed the Bible and Why? posting.
May I suggest that youse guys actually read that book? One of the points it supports (posits and presents evidence for) is that every English translation of the New Testament is taken from the same, flawed, Papally-commanded re-translation into Greek.
Jason: As I suspect you know, John Travolta is a proselytizing Scientologist. There are some strategic similarities between their church and mainstream Christians, but the underlying faith and definition of God are very different.
Dan, yes, I know about Travolta. He's far less fanatic, apparently, than his co-religionist, Mssr Cruise.
Scientology is a good case study in the development of a religious movement, since it is based on absolute poppycock–documented poppycock–and was invented quite cynically by a science fiction writer who boasted to his colleagues that he intended to go into religion because the money was better. How anyone can watch scientology develop as it has and still think that "their" religion is any different, I put down to the power of human will–the will to be blind to the things you want at the expense of reality.
The Amish have been called “the last intact Israelite tribe”. This is to say that they do things on a tribal, or at least a community basis with a common worldview. They are making a pretty good go of it, but even these folks are not fully following biblical law. Part of the reason for this is the lack of influence they have over the state and federal government. Most of the laws in the OT are about how government {the rulers and judges} is to function. Only a small portion has personal application. A people would have to have autonomy over their land and every aspect of their lives, including the ability to remove evil rulers at the highest level.
[edited for length – admin]
"But you might want to actually study other legal and ethical systems before calling me on this." I tried this approach for years, all it does is get you more confused.
The people that study counterfeit money don't spend years studying counterfeit money to learn how to detect a counterfeit bill. They study the real thing and know it so well that they can practically spot a counterfeit on sight.
If there had been any attempts to follow God's Law by now they would have been pretty hard to hide. All I have found is people taking the portions they understood {or liked} and implementing them {the smorgasbord method} and then making up dung for the rest.
Government and ecclesiastic issue bibles have kept the plebs in line so far. Like I said before, there is still enough available to show us what our leadership is and is not supposed to do. God will not hold us accountable to a Word we haven't received.
"The people that study counterfeit money don’t spend years studying counterfeit money to learn how to detect a counterfeit bill. They study the real thing and know it so well that they can practically spot a counterfeit on sight."
The Treasury Department has an entire school on methods of counterfeiting, so that's a facile and inaccurate attempt at a comparison.
"If there had been any attempts to follow God’s Law by now they would have been pretty hard to hide."
See, this is the problem of having a "preferred model" fixed in mind from the outset–your expectations blind you to the possibilities. Maybe "god's law", as you call it, has more than one form, and perhaps it's a bit more versatile than you imagine. But you'll likely never know because if it doesn't match your expectations you ignore it. Had you tried it for years in an attempt to apprehend what was actually there rather looking for the "proper fit" you wouldn't have been confused.
This is bad science. You predetermine the outcome you desire (and then blame it on god) and then condemn anything that doesn't measure up (or down) to you model. Bad science, bad logic, faulty reasoning, and frankly–I hate to say–a waste of time.