There are simple reasons to reject Biblical authority. Very simple. One above all others–the Bible assigns people to roles from which, by virtue of divine mandate, they cannot abandon. It accords thinking beings no grant to be other than what the Bible says they should be.
Now, a lot of people treat this in one of two ways. The benign way is to simply ignore these restrictions until such a point where the deviations cannot be ignored. For instance, in the case of gay marriage. There has been a sliding metric of tolerance leading up to the point past which those professing a christian character simply cannot go. They sort of make these restrictions cases of, well, in an ideal, christian world these laws would hold, but we don’t live in that world, and since we all have to get along, well, we’ll just pretend they aren’t there for the most point. Because, you see, if they took them seriously, there would be a lot of public executions.
Which leads to me to the malign way of dealing with them–extremist posturing. These rules are god’s rules and we ignore them at out peril. Such people condemn people who are different, rail against the establishment, and actually work toward putting these rules into practice, either through mainstream legal institutions or by joining cults who leave mainstream society and set up little compounds here and there. The leaders of such groups become right vicious little tyrants and a peak inside their precincts shows what would be in store for all of us were they to get their way nationally. Some go so far as to commit murders (god spoke to me and said kill the woman!), blow up private property, and generally harass anyone who disagrees with them.
Both kinds of folks feed into the periodic resurgence of religiosity that muddies our political waters and gets us all in a froth over individual rights, civil rights, and various other community issues which we ought really to have figured out and solved by now.
The question is asked how I can have the chutzpa to claim the Bible should be ignored. Good question. And I don’t say it should be ignored. There’s history there–some of it bad, some of it apocryphal, some of it outright fable–but history nevertheless. There are examples of law making, of civic institution building, of all manner of human endeavor we would do well to study, if only as counterexample. But as a moral guidebook?
Some of what Jesus said is pretty good. But it is when he is speaking about the nature of community and the worth of individuals that he’s at his best. Some of his life lessons are fascinating. As I’ve noted before, whoever Yeshua bar Joseph was, he was a pretty fair philosopher, and a lot of what he had to say was radical.
Iterestingly enough, when he made his claim about bringing a sword and pitting son against father and so on, he was right. Look around. Families often dissolve over differing interpretations of his words. His philosophy has been divisive. He wasn’t doing individuals of conscience any favors by giving them a program that would set them at odds with the society in which they lived. But to me, these were not the words of a deity telling us what he wanted, but of a savvy political thinker who knew the consequences of his philosophy. It was a warning–follow my teaching at your peril.
So most people claiming to be his followers don’t actually follow his words. They substitute belief (faith) for change. They get to go on living peaceably within their communities while feeling they have a good bead on how to get to heaven. That’s how many of them can support Bush and still claim to be good christians–because they believe, not because they’re doing anything Jesus told them to do.
My problem with the rest of the Bible, though, is twofold. One, it is based largely on the national epic of a nation that, in spite of the fact there is today a country by that name, no longer exists. Israel is not run the way it was under Saul and David, Solomon or the Macabees. The essence of that nation is long dead. At best, modern Israel is an homage. So the question I have is, what does the national epic of a country two millennia gone have to do with me? The answer is, about as much as Rome under Caesar does, or Babylon, or Thebes under the Seven, or the Mogul Empire. What we are today is part of the long, twisted road of history, but I am not a Roman, a Mogul, a Hittite, a Celt…or an eighth century B.C.E. Hebrew.
The other reason is that the human program advocated throughout most of the Bible is, to my mind, unethical and immoral. Slavery is a given throughout. Even Paul supports it, going so far as to tell slaves to be good and make no trouble. Women are chattel. People are stoned for personal insult (a son or daughter who disrespects their parents can and ought to be put to death; my question is, what if mom and dad deserve the disrespect?). Rampant, bloody nationalism is the rule–the modern day butchers in Darfour are the natural political descendents of Joshua and his band of invaders.
In short, the worth of an individual is sublimated by ideology, and that, we have seen from Columbus to Chechnya, is a horrid, ghastly state of affairs.
Jesus, by the way, said several things that suggest he felt otherwise, but they get mixed with a latent kind of demagoguery which may or may not have been grafted onto his words later. (I have always believed that the lesson of the woman at the well is not that her adultery and fornication were so bad, but that Jesus couldn’t abide her lying about it. Novel interpretation, I know, but he also spared the prostitute from stoning, and he treated Mary and Martha with as much respect as the men. According to Bart Ehrman, Mary’s status among the disciples has been consistently weakened by later chronographers.)
But very simply, to make someone a slave and therefore less than yourself–to treat a woman as something less than a human being (the standard for human being, being a man)–to be willing to slaughter your own child because of the commands of a voice in your head, unquestioning as to how your child might regard this usurpation of his or her right to live–to sort people, even their children, by virtue of a difference in their ideas and then condemn them to death for it–this is patently immoral.
Might we not recast the Bible, then? Not as a series of examples to embrace thoughtlessly, but as a compendium of stuff that doesn’t work? That maybe, along with the supposed lessons of proper behavior, these are also examples we must reject?
Implicitly, we do. I’ve said elsewhere that we live in a Post-Levitical World, and that not even most of the most extreme fundamentalists would assent to living according to those rules. Without actually saying out loud “That’s absurd!” we have moved on from the Pentateuch.
But maybe it would be a good, healthy thing to say “You know, there’s a lot worth paying attention to in the Bible, but there’s also a lot of real garbage. I wouldn’t treat a dog that way.”
I have a standard. I see people as people first, and accord them ALL the rights and privileges I expect for myself. Everything else about them comes second, third, or not at all–whether they be women, gay, different races, nationalities, or philosophies. I don’t judge based on any of these things.
Didn’t Jesus say something about a beam in the eye…?
Regarding the admirable moral rules allegedly espoused by Jesus: Are they good because Jesus said them, or did Jesus say them because they were good. This is a fundamental divide of humanity.
Many of those who read the Bible with preconceptions that it is the inerrant word of God go so far as to claim that Jesus invented the Golden Rule, an absurd claim (see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=421 ). Nor can they bear to acknowledge many of the hideous and disturbing lessons from the New Testament (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=240 ), much the even more hideous and more disturbing lessons of the Old Testament. This split in attitude is the beginning of much mischief.
My dream is that, someday, all Believers will recognize that some moral lessons of the Bible do make sense (regardless of who allegedly taught them) and that other lessons of the Bible don't make sense (regardless of who allegedly taught them). I am thus in agreement with Jason on his eloquent post.
Epilogue: not to start another Bart Ehrman conflagration, but I did want to add a footnote here. Careful scholarship indicates that the story about Jesus saving the prostitute from stoning was added hundreds of years after the original Bible writings (the "originals" weren't written for several decades after the alleged death of Jesus). Therefore, based on careful scholarship, the story of Jesus saving the prostitute is should be stricken from the Gospel. See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=668 .
The failure to keep the balanced perspective Jason suggests here leads to strange conduct and assertions. Consider this recent statement by Robin Hayes, a Republican Congressman from North Carolina.
As this source post "suggests," it's time to replace our soldiers with missionaries.
Congressman Virgil Goode, Republican from West Virginia, sent a letter this week calling for restricting U.S. immigration laws to prevent Muslims from entering America. He is disturbed because a newly-elected Democrat congressman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, will have a private swearing-in ceremony using the Quran instead of the Bible. Goode fears that "if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." (See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_el_ho/e…
Goode insists he is not a bigot, but that claim is obviously no more valid than the other nonsense he spouts. What is more disturbing, though, is that his views presumably reflect a significant portion of his constituents. How sad that the Land of Liberty should harbor such venomous beliefs.
I agree with these analyses of religious thinking. However, we should keep in mind that these folks from the South do not believe that they are in the wrong. Further, had any of us actually grown up in the "deep south", we would probably not have been exposed to muslims except for what we had seen on Fox News. It is natural (selection?) to be fearful and suspicious of things which are unknown or that look "different". These are heavily engrained beliefs about the superiority of "self", and are nearly impossible to shake if you live in a sheltered environment. The only path to real enlightenment is through experiencing or studying how "others" live and operate. If at that point, you still find yourself superior, maybe you belong in the Oval Office or Hollywood.
Scripture has become the Swiss Army Knife of a certain kind of ideologue. Hence the Virgil Goodes–who, by the way, sees the use of the Koran this way as a threat to certain traditions, and he's right. The question is whether those traditions are worth maintaining.
Erich, I knew that about the prostitute, but so much of what Jesus supposedly said is apocryphal that I tend to treat him as a kind of Idea rather than a person. Several different rabbis probably comprise the single entity known as Jesus, and not all them were contemporaries. The prostitute is a grafting I'll take (yes, my own brand of cherry picking—but then I never claimed otherwise).
Dan's attempt to make a comment on the morality article.
To say this simply, if the bible as Christians have today is God's Word, then it is the only basis for understanding truth. Truth reveals reality. This is the only benchmark we have in the world today. Without God's Word we only make decisions without a rational thought pattern or a guideline. We see the results of this as more and more of our population turns to support what is evil to offset good in the attempt stop conflicts and wars. Please comment
This Dan is puzzled by the Kyzer monograph.
As near as I can tell, his claim is that Confucius, Hammurabi, Siddhartha Gautama, Aristotle, Socrates, and many others composed their civilization-creating ideas "without a rational thought pattern or a guideline," because they predated or were otherwise unaware of the Judeo-Christian Bibles. Parts of the Old Testament were copied from Hammurabi's texts, and the New Testament was probably influenced in tone by the Greeks. But not the other way around.
I'm also confused about his contention that a growing segment of the population (world? U.S? D.C?) is supporting "evil" in an attempt to stop conflicts. Is there an example?
"The Bible" is an edited collection of writings originally from various sources, available in many translations, each with its own shades of meaning. If it were the true word of God, which version is the correct one? If it is the true word of God, how can many opposing causes be supported in its name?
"support what is evil to offset good in the attempt stop conflicts and wars"
Actually, if we are causing you (neocons) so much pain by stopping conflict, don't we kind of break even in God's eyes? Hmmm
To Dan Kyzer:
To put it simply, your query posits an idea that Truth is a static, monolithic thing that can be found in one specific location. This is nonsense. Your own personal experience will tell you so if you pay attention.
Truth is a process of recognition. It is ongoing, it is multifaceted, it is the source of growth of awareness.
I have wondered about the claim that the Bible is The Truth. What part? And what truth? I had a grandmother who, in her life, had read the Bible cover to cover somewhere around fourteen or fifteen times and was one of the most ingrown, bigoted, unenlightened people I knew. Whatever Truth she found in it did not serve her to be a better person. Of course, that's anecdotal, so take it or leave it.
Truth is a function of Reason. Reason is not constrained or contained by a single text or experience. We base our ethics and our morality on experience as informed by Reason. This often leads us to discard massive swatches of Biblical presciption.
But I'm interested. What parts and what Truth?
What's most disturbing is that people can't seem to do the right thing without a book of instructions and a threat of hell or promise of heaven. I don't need a god to know that the world would be a nice place if we were kind to one another for a change. Why doesn't anyone else seem to get that?
Of course, too much talk like that and I'll end up nailed to a tree.
Jason,
I have found your article extremely interesting. I can relate to some of the comments you make about extremist. I too find it unacceptable in saying to the world that God told someone to commit murder. Have you ever given much thought to the possibility that the extremist you talk about in your article are not followers of Jesus? A follower of Jesus does exactly what you had to say about your fellow man. We are to love others as we love ourselves. Now this means that no matter what kind of person they happen to be, that is, if they have a different lifes style than you, etc. we are to show Christ's love to them by the way we talk, act, etc. to them and about them. Further, God tells us to love our enemies and not to dispise them. (By the way in passing we are not to make converts. Only God can make a convert. If a man converts someone to a particular faith by being persuavsive then we have just another man following another man.)
I did note one thing in your article that tells me a lot about you. You make quite a few judgements in your statements but you don't allow the Christian to make one. Think about this.
It is abvious from my viewpoint that you have never met a real Christian. We are not perfect by any means but are constantly making the effort to improve and often asking for forgiveness. I have an open mind to a large number of subjectsl
When a person writes an article or makes a statement this opens that person up to critical scrutiny. I would like to say that I appreciate your frankness and would welcome additional discussion on this subject.
Dan
Dan,
Have never met a real christian? Sir, I used to be a real christian. The kind who would stop people on the street and ask if they'd found Jesus. Along the way I've met many real christians, and they are, as you suggest, very different from the extremists. I found, moreover, that they didn't need the Bible to be good people. It was just a reference point for them, nothing more. They carried their faith inside, they didn't leave it somewhere buried in their book.
Dan Kyzer suggests that Jason has "never met a real Christian." Now, I would bet that Jason has met a lot of people who call themselves "Christians," so here's my question: for a religion that claims to offer an *absolute moral compass*, how can so many people be imitation Christians and not know it?
Jason,
What happened? What changed your mind and heart? Can a real Christain become a non-Christain? Please explain.
Dan
"to be willing to slaughter your own child because of the commands of a voice in your head"
There are so many weird contradictions in the Bible that it's hard to understand how many people are able to take the stories literal. The God in the Old Testament is authoritarian and vindictive, the God in the New Testament suddenly seems like someone who took anger management classes. Suddenly it's all about love.
What I never understood about the story with Abraham and his son is the arbitrary use of morals and the conflict of values that is created by his God. You're not supposed to kill your brother, but it's ok to kill your son if your God demands it without giving you further explanations or reason. It's either bad to kill people or it's not bad to kill them. Following this logic, all these things like love thy neighbor, compassion for those in need, being generous to the poor, and so on, are not absolute values either, they are just the random demands of a moody God who might change his mind any time. All these good Christians are in fact not really good people because they do good things, they are good because they do what their God wants (or what they assume he wants).
Dan Kyzer: If you meet "real" nonbelievers (to borrow a modification of yours) you'll find that many began as devout believers. Statisically, this shouldn't surprise us, because Christians make up so much of the population. But I don't just mean moderate, barely-practicing Christians, or even children raised Christian, I mean "real" Christians, perhaps just like you. I know a nonbeliever who studied Christian apologetics in college; I know a nonbeliever who went to school with the intent of becoming a minister; several "big-name" atheist writers began as "real" Christians, too. So such a conversion can, and in fact does, happen often. But Jason no doubt can give you a more personal explanation of how it occurs.
Dan,
I have two answers to that question. One: I grew out of it. Just like growing out of believing in Santa.
The second answer is more complex, but has to do with realizing (apprehending) that christian mythology/theology is one facet of a dynamic called Being Human, and that it does not explain everything, solve everything, or mean everything. It's one way of dealing with the universe and in some respects not a very good way. I realized that the pure joy I felt in religious observence was exactly the same as I felt in the presence of great music, and therefore it was something in me, not from Out There. I realized that all religions, in some way, at some point, seek to fix our understanding in cement and make us not move or change, but that change is inevitable and often desirable, a challenge to adapt and respond rather than anything destructive. Reread my post. Except for a few wackos (yes, I tend to be judgmental–but it's only turnabout, judgment for judgment) we simply do not live that way anymore and god–or whatever–has not punished us for it. (You could probably recast any set of events and construe them as punishment, but they aren't.) Mainly because god–or whatever you choose to call it– is something within us and it's our responsibility to recognize it and deploy in the best way possible. You don't need to be a christian to do that. You just need to be aware.
First of all, people can abandon their God-given roles. It is a choice for each individual to make. To abandon your role that God has given to you is called “sin” in the Bible (in other words, being disobedient to God). People do it everyday. In fact by writing what you have written you go against God and therefore sin. You, yourself, are proof that you can abandon you God-given role.
God gave you a brain and expects you to use it. The problem is, there is sin in the world (in us too, from birth) and so our thinking is clouded by sin until the problem of sin is dealt with (ie repentance and a changed mind/life). Trying to live/think apart from God is called depravity (a depraved or useless mind). I was once like that so do not feel too bad because as there was hope for me there is also hope for you.
Homosexuality is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) because God says so 2) because it is a direct attack on the foundation of society (if you destroy the foundation then the house will fall). How many homosexuals die from AIDS each year? We do see public executions of immoral people (unfortunately) on a daily basis in our country. They are executing themselves. The really evil people want to cover that up and make immorality (homosexuality) look like something that is ok, just misunderstood. God condemns immorality in every form (homosexuality) so here you go again trying to blame people for what God has already warned us about. It is your own fault if you do not heed the warnings. God does not call us to murder anyone, ever! (do not confuse murder with kill, just in case you want to pull out an OT quote, just know I am prepared). God says that He is the One who gives life and He is the One who puts to death. Life and death are in His hands. Like it or not it is a reality. All of what Jesus said is good, just because you do not understand it does not make it good or bad (I would hope that you would be a little more intelligent than that).
Do you know why father is against son and mother against daughter? One accepts Jesus and follows Him while the other does not. The persecution comes from the one who does not accept Jesus (just like you are doing today, what He said is still true, thanks for being a living example.
Anytime you follow Jesus Christ you will be at odd with society. Why? Because society is enslaved to sin and He sets us free from it. Most of the people, when they encounter one who has been set free from slavery to sin, try to persecute that person for being different (using your own argument against you, I hope that you noticed). Instead of saying “wow God really changed your life” they try to marginalize or even make them out to be villains. (Jesus spoke of it long before it happened). If you read many of the comments addressed to me (the Christian) you will see that I am either marginalized or made out to be the villain (you guys have not come up with anything new in your “free thinking”). So again, you guys are the proof that God’s Word is real. He spoke about you and your actions long before you ever stepped on the scene.
By the way, the Greek word for believe means to take action or in other words, do what Jesus says. So, those who believe/follow Jesus do what He says in His Word. You are dead wrong about Israel (the Hebrews). They are still here, with their traditions and all, just as God is still here. Guess what? They (God and Israel) will still be here when you are dead and gone. Slavery has been a given throughout human history. Because of sin, men will always want to own each other. God says if you become a Christian as a slave then be content as you are and let God remove you from slavery. He says that if you are free when you become a Christian then remain free (do not become a slave). Please study the facts before you make all of your bold (ignorant) accusations. The Bible tells us to obey (respect) our parents in the Lord. The key phrase is “in the Lord” or according to God’s will (Word). When your parents tell you to do something that is contrary to God’s Word then you must obey God and not your parents. By the way you should respect your parents even if they do not deserve it, it will set a good example for them and who knows, maybe they will change. You job is to obey God and allow Him to do the rest.
Woman was created man’s equal in the eyes of God. Once sin came into the picture man started using women. Please do not blame God for man’s wickedness. As for Joshua, God gave the people of the land of Canaan over 400 years to repent of their sins and they did not. Now, let us look at some of their sins (the list is not pretty) adultery, fornication, rape, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, sacrificing children to idols, etc. So you think that they guilty should not be punished for the terrible crimes committed against the innocent. By the way if it took place for more than 400 years then the sins (lifestyle) was passed on from grown up to children (like what the homosexuals are trying to do in our days). So God was judging that nation that did not believe in Him. He still does the same today (even for atheists who do not believe).
Jesus said take the beam out of your own eye and THEN HELP YOUR BROTHER WITH HIS PROBLEM.
Yes, deal with yours first but you are obligated to help your neighbor as well. Read what the entire text says.
Erik wrote:—"As for Joshua, God gave the people of the land of Canaan over 400 years to repent of their sins and they did not. Now, let us look at some of their sins (the list is not pretty) adultery, fornication, rape, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, sacrificing children to idols, etc."
That's what the Hebrews said after they took the land. Propaganda, probably. Hearsay at best.
But you miss my larger point, Erik—as usual. According to you, we have the choice to get in line and do what (supposedly) god says (in the bible) or be labeled sinners. But if what is being asked of us is on its face wrong, then what real choice is that? Be bad in the name of god or be good in the name of sin? It's an absurd choice, which is why I and others claim that much of what is in the bible didn't come from god but was inserted by Men wanting to maintain power and privilege. Once you understand that, it makes much of the contradiction and seeming ridiculousness of the OT (and more than a little of the NT) make sense.
• Mark Tiedemann Says:
That is the best you would come up with. Again, I am telling you guys what is written in black and white in the Scriptures and you guys come back with YOUR speculation. We have the evidence vs. speculation argument. Evidence prevails again. Read Genesis 15 and you will see a direct prophecy about the over 400 years to repent. God tells the children of Israel not to take part in any of the sins committed by the Canaanites. Then He lays out the list (actually He lays out the list first). There is extra-biblical evidence of the cult worship of the Canaanites and how they sacrificed their kids to the gods.
God does not ask anyone to do anything that would go against His Word. Do you no think that the guilty should be punished? Does God not have the right to punish His own creation for breaking His mandates? Does the clay tell the potter what to do or is it the other way around? Use some simple logic. There is no contradiction in the OT or NT. Please do not confuse what you do not understand with something that is right or wrong. All of the so called controversies work out when you know the context (Biblical and cultural). Let me give you a classic example of an often misunderstood passage.
1 John 3:9 9 No one who is 1aborn of God bpractices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is 1born of God.
Many have taken this verse to justify that there are no Christians because everybody sins and if you are born of God you cannot sin, as the text claims. Here is the problem. The Bible says that we are born sinners and we remain in a lifestyle of sin until Jesus Christ sets us free. Once He does we are no longer slaves to sin (living a lifestyle of sin). This does not mean that we will never make a mistake here and there, but a mistake here and there is different from a lifestyle of sin. When I John says that he cannot sin, the Greek verb for sin is in the present tense and active voice which means that a person of God cannot go on sinning (ie living a lifestyle of sin). Do you see the difference? Careful analysis o the text will show that there are NO contradictions in the Bible.
Erik wrote:–"We have the evidence vs. speculation argument. Evidence prevails again. Read Genesis 15 and you will see a direct prophecy about the over 400 years to repent"
I direct you to the fact that the only "evidence" you have presented is that which is written in the very book which is at question. What validates the Bible? You claim the prophecies came true, but your only evidence for that is what is written in another part of the same book. Can you define Tautology?
You have presented an opinion.
But since you insist there are no contradictions in the Bible, let me give you a good one.
There are two genealogies for Jesus in the NT—one in Matthew, the other in Luke. They contradict. They are two lists of different names that end up with Joseph's father. Now, I've heard any number of contorted explanations for this, but the fact remains they are different and they are patrilineal. They can't both be true.
Besides which, according to christian doctrine since those days, Joseph cannot be the father, which is how he is listed. So if god actually told Matthew and Luke to write that down, then either god made a mistake, the two writers mis-heard him, or some other explanation must be the case. No matter what, it is a black& white, on the page contradiction, one that is usually ignored, and no matter what answer you come up with, it is going to be YOUR OPINION. AN INTERPRETATION. Meaning that the book in question is not clear, unambiguous, or without flaw.
Once again, I doubt this will alter the way you see things, but there you go.
As to biblical law, let me ask you another question. Do you think we should practice slavery? It was condoned by Yahweh. If your daughter loses her virginity before marriage, how much are you going to demand in payment from the young man in question? That, too, is prescribed in the bible. If your children one day tell you to your face that you're (choose whatever insult you would think appropriate) do you think it would be proper to stone them to death? That's the prescribed punishment.
Point is, we know these things are wrong, but there they are, in the bible. So I can only assume you, like most other fundies, cherry pick for convenience.
A further conundrum. Lots daughters. That story always puzzled me. God could find a way to send a couple of angels to Lot to warn him that Sodom was about to be nuked, but somehow He couldn't manage to find that cave where they all holed up to tell his daughters that the world hadn't ended and they didn't have to get dad drunk and screw him in order to save the human race. Funny that little lapse in foresight. What do you think? Or was that just Yahweh's way of rewarding Lot for getting out of town and maybe compensating him for the loss of his wife?
Anyway, I have better things to do.
• Mark Tiedemann Says:
September 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
You wrote “your only evidence for that is what is written in another part of the same book”
I brought forth evidence from the OT (prophecy) that was fulfilled in history (there is documentation). God promised that the Hebrews would always exist as a people and they are still here today (living proof). Secondly, the prophecies concerning Jesus from the OT were fulfilled in an actual historical figure (born where the prophecies predicted and dying exactly as the prophecies predicted). Again real proof vs. your speculation. Quite trying to dance around the facts like liberals do so well.
I have presented actual facts. Your denial of reality does not change reality.
Here is the list from Matthew (please show me the problem.
• Abraham
• Isaac
• Jacob
• Judah
• Perez
• Hezron
• Ram
• Amminadab
• Nahshon
• Salmon
• Boaz
• Obed
• Jesse
• David
• Solomon
• Rehoboam
• Abijah
• Asa
• Jehoshaphat
• Joram
• Uzziah
• Jotham
• Ahaz
• Hezekiah
• Manasseh
• Amon
• Josiah
• Jeconiah
• Shealtiel
• Zerubbabel
• Abihud
• Eliakim
• Azor
• Zadok
• Achim
• Eliud
• Eleazar
• Matthan
• Jacob
• Joseph
• Jesus
Secondly, you can be a father without being the natural father of a child (adoption). Everything matches up so please enlighten me on the mistake.
Again, show me the mistake (outline it for me). There is no mistake here. Also, do not forget the fact that the writers of the Gospels are showing different aspects of the same person (different does not mean contradictory). You have different qualities that make up who you are and if 4 people described you then they would each describe the different parts of your character (along with the similarities).
The Bible does not teach slavery. Just because people in the Bible owned slaves does not mean that God teaches it (God teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman but people chose to sin and take concubines, not God’s fault). As far as payment for virginity, it is punishment for stealing (virginity is a gift) and do not forget that he must marry the girl and never divorce her (do not pick and choose what you want to see).
Again, I have explained about the theocracy of the OT that no longer exists because the people rejected God. We do not carry out God’s judgment (He does it). Now, when children choose to dishonor their parents then there will be consequences because God is not mocked, what a man sows he will also reap. Again you are not taking into consideration the context of the text or the historical context. Be a good student (don’t just regurgitate what someone else tells you).
I have done no cherry picking. I have explained every so called contradiction but you guys just stick you fingers in your ears and look for more so called “mistakes”. By the way, you can call by any name you please but God calls me His child/disciple so that is how I refer to myself.
As to Lot’s daughters, I have explained that one as well but I will do it again. Those girls were affected by the immorality that surrounded them on a daily basis (they lived in Sodom, a highly immoral city plagued with homosexuality). They were acting out what they had been indoctrinated with by the immoral people of the city (the first liberals). Again, do not blame God for man’s sin, it is man’s choice (the key word that you guys hate so much).
You didn't post the genealogy from Luke.
As for the Bible teaching marriage between one man and one woman, that may be true for the NT, but the OT folks had a system of one man and as many women as he could manage.
Just to make it easy, I'll post the Luke genealogy:
(I'll just go from David, for the sake of brevity.)
David
Nathan
Matatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakam
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Symeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Jonam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus
No matter which way you read it, that contradicts the Matthew list.
As to adoption, you are correct, but it says NOTHING ABOUT THAT in the NT. Instead, we get a standard, patrilinial genealogy, recorded as if all these names are blood related.
Now, for it to have been the miracle so professed, both Matthew and Luke ought to have recorded this lineage through Mary's bloodline. That would have been stunning, remarkable, and so unusual that we'd have some basis for believing something unique had happened here.
As for all that nonsense about the Bible not supporting slavery, you need to read Paul more closely.
It doesn't matter though, because it is not condemned as a moral wrong (which, I hope you agree, it is). Instead we get a commandment exhorting us not to covet another man's servant, among other things in a list that enumerates PROPERTY, so it is included in the basic rules.
The point about the price for virginity is simply this: it renders the daughter PROPERTY, rather than as an individual with her own choices (it doesn't specify age), choices it is presumed the man has. I don't see a price attached for a man's son losing his cherry.
You cherry pick. You answer the parts of my questions with which you are comfortable and ignore the rest. (You didn't say a thing about Lot's daughters.)
And if the Bible requires "context" in which to understand it, then it is not the timeless, universal document you assert. What I hear you saying is that it is as much to do with the culture of the times in which it was written as anything else—which I agree—but you fail to see that those cultural norms carry with them practices we find abhorrent today and have found basically immoral.
Finally, though, I see a lot of INTERPRETATION going on in your responses, which kind of means you're making the decision about what it means. Which is fine. But you cross the line when you assume your interpretation is the only valid one.
Anyway, sorry for the delay in responding. I was out of town for the weekend. I'm back now.