(September 27, 2012 at 7:14 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: ...

Since I am not smart enough to make a case from that text alone I am wondering if you would allow me to draw upon other texts?

There is a method of interpreting scripture in which you use the clear passages to interpret the unclear passages. Consider the following verses:

...

I'm not here to establish new theology. I'm not trying "systematically" interpret the entire Bible to make a new doctrine about the character of God.

"God" to me in these OT passages is just the fictional desert god "Yahweh" little different from other gods of the time. I don't expect all of the stories told about him from different writers in different eras to show the same consistent character.

This whole method of using "clear to interpret the unclear" is fallacious since it has the predetermined goal of harmonizing all the scripture on a subject into one consistent message. When you say for instance "9 passages on a subject say this but this 1 passage over here appears to say another thing" and then conclude "therefore, this 1 passage must be really saying what the other 9 are saying and we should translate it in a way that better agrees with the majority of other verses" this is an example of what you, Godschild, and Undecieved are essentially doing.

This is not what I'm doing when I quote the Ezekiel passage to interpret the Exodus passage. First of all, I'm not dogmatic about the meaning of the Exodus verse. It is unclear. What the scholars I've referenced are doing is seeing the Ezekiel passage and its mentioning of "past statutes" and its description of God as once commanding child sacrifice is going "hmm, I wonder if maybe it's talking about Exodus 22"? And it is interesting to note that Exodus 22 happens to be one from one of the older sources of the book whereas Exodus 13 is from a newer source. Exodus 13 seems to be an elaboration upon Exodus 22, and chapter 13 now excludes the possibility of child sacrifice. This makes sense if as indicated by Ezekiel 20, early Israel once practiced child sacrifice (as did other cultures) and then abandoned it as it became more civilized. Exodus 22 then would make sense as being from the earlier part of Israel when it did do child sacrifice and Exodus 13 would be the later time when it abandoned the practice.

Notice what I'm NOT doing. I'm not operating under the assumption of consistency. I didn't try to tackle all those other verses that you and Undecieved brought up and try to make them read as if God was commanding child sacrifice. I'm perfectly fine with contradictions. The Bible was written by human authors. Contradictions are what I expect.

Quote:For the Eze text, I thought this was very interesting.


Ezekiel 20:25–26 (ESV) — 25 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is.

Well, of course you don't. You're using what seems to be crappy translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version


If you agree with that translation of that verse, you need to present arguments in favor of that translation. Since I myself (as well as you) can't read ancient Hebrew, I can only rely on scholars. None of the scholarly sources I've read (which includes peer reviewed sources) have acted like the traditional translation of the Ezekiel verse is questionable. In the absence of arguments to the contrary, I have to rely on authority (and what appears to be consensus). If you have arguments in favor of that translation in Ezekiel, I'm willing to hear them and will try to deal with them without appealing to consensus or authority.

Quote:The first part of the text "I gave them statues that were not good and rules by which they could not have life" is foreshadowing the coming of the New Covenant.

Um, notice the past tense verb "gave."

Quote:The second part is saying that they are defiled in God's eyes because they are doing what is detestable in his sight. So God allows them to do it so that in the aftermath they will know he is God.

Again, this seems be a reading that comes only from your translation which I don't trust.

Quote:I think by your own statements (before someone had tried to appeal to another chapter of Ex but you said it was written later after God had changed his mind) these two verses shouldn't be linked. Eze was written WAY after Ex, so by your own criteria (doesn't count because it came after) these verses are not a problem.

You must be going by fundamentalist datings.

Wikipedia on the date of the composition of Exodus:

Quote:According to current thinking, a first draft (the Yahwist) was probably written in the 6th century BCE during the Babylonian exile; this was supplemented and completed as a post-Exilic final edition (the Priestly source) at the very end of the 6th century or during the 5th century,[9] and further adjustments and minor revisions continued down to the end of the 4th century.

Wikipedia on the date of composition of Ezekiel:

Quote:The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of the Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571. Most scholars today accept the basic authenticity of the book, but see in it significant additions by a "school" of later followers of the original prophet.[4] Thus, while the book exhibits considerable unity and probably reflects much of the historic Ezekiel, it is the product of a long and complex history and does not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet.[5]
According to the information given in the book, Ezekiel ben-Buzi was born into a priestly family of Jerusalem c.623 BCE, during the reign of the reforming king Josiah. Prior to this time, Judah had been a vassal of the Assyrian empire, but the rapid decline of Assyria after c.630 led Josiah to assert his independence and institute a religious reform stressing loyalty to Yahweh, the national God. Josiah was killed in 609 and Judah became a vassal of the new regional power, the Babylonian empire. In 597, following a rebellion against Babylon, Ezekiel was among the large group of Judeans taken into captivity by the Babylonians. He appears to have spent the rest of his life in Mesopotamia. A further deportation of Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon occurred in 586 when a second unsuccessful rebellion resulted in the destruction of the city and its Temple and the exile of the remaining elements of the royal court, including the last scribes and priests. The various dates given in the book suggest that Ezekiel was 25 when he went into exile, 30 when he received his prophetic "call", and 52 at the time of the last vision c.571.

So according to scholarship, Ezekiel lived before the earliest draft of Exodus.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No you cannot. You are entitled to enquire if Tegh believes in such, but you are not entitled to take his words and twist them to suit your own ends. It's not just an honesty issue, it's plain common courtesy. You wouldn't appreciate having your words manipulated in such a way, would you?

I agree, I was just trying to illustrate the point.

God's character is established throughout the Bible and it seems unfair to take an obscure verse and hypothesize something inconsistent with the rest of the biblical texts.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote:

(September 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No you cannot. You are entitled to enquire if Tegh believes in such, but you are not entitled to take his words and twist them to suit your own ends. It's not just an honesty issue, it's plain common courtesy. You wouldn't appreciate having your words manipulated in such a way, would you?

I agree, I was just trying to illustrate the point.

God's character is established throughout the Bible and it seems unfair to take an obscure verse and hypothesis something inconsistent with the rest of the biblical texts.

Critical scholars do not work to support Christianity (or undermine it). They work to get to the truth.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Well, of course you don't. You're using what seems to be crappy translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version

Why do you consider it a crappy translation? And why do you trust your favored translation more?

(September 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Um, notice the past tense verb "gave."

Correct, I am saying that specifically He is referring to the Old covenant in this text, and the giving of the New Covenant is foreshadowed. I didn't articulate my thoughts well.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: So according to scholarship, Ezekiel lived before the earliest draft of Exodus.

You may have a great point here.

I have to say, I appreciate your thoughts...while I disagree with the conclusion (which you know) your argument with the datings of the books seems pretty solid.

Nicely done =D

I'll research and post again later.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: I agree, I was just trying to illustrate the point.

I shall try not to feel used for rising to the bait.

(September 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: God's character is established throughout the Bible and it seems unfair to take an obscure verse and hypothesis something inconsistent with the rest of the biblical texts.

If God's character as portrayed in the bible is an accurate representation, then the creature (if it were to exist) would be a steaming psychopathic monstrosity who just wants a hug. The gods of the Discworld would be infinitely preferable to a person in the market for something to worship.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be "the rest of the biblical texts" - mentioned but strangely unreferenced - that are inconsistent with the verses cited in the OP?

(September 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote:

(September 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Well, of course you don't. You're using what seems to be crappy translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version

Why do you consider it a crappy translation? And why do you trust your favored translation more?

As explained in the Wikipedia link, it seems to be biased towards translating the OT in favor of the NT's readings of it. I'd rather use a bible that translates the OT to mean what it originally meant rather than favor what's likely anachronistic rereadings of the NT writers.

I also don't like using gender neutral language in translating historical texts. I don't want the force the text to appeal to modern audiences. I want it warts and all.

I prefer literal translations as long as they're not unreadable.

The RSV I use the most because I've been told that it's more objective than others. If you look here the only criticism of it seem to be that it stepped on the toes of Christian doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Sta...of_the_RSV

It undoubtedly though has its own problems and I do not pretend to argue that it's the best.

As for Ezekiel, it's not just the RSV that translates to render as God commanding child sacrifice so you're not out of hot water yet.

(September 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: As for Ezekiel, it's not just the RSV that translates to render as God commanding child sacrifice so you're not out of hot water yet.

Cool, thanks for the info. I've been trying to find the most accurate translation, but they all have pros and cons....I've mostly been using the NASB and the ESV.

I appreciate your level headed demeanor and reasonableness.

I'll try and get back to you in the next few days =D

---

(September 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I shall try not to feel used for rising to the bait.

Sorry Stimbo! By the way, that debate was awesome. I want to write you a PM about it later.

I came back into to this thread ready to take no prisoners but...

@ Reasonable_Jeff, I also use the NASB and the ESV, together one can find the truths that scripture affords, especially with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

(September 27, 2012 at 5:26 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ Reasonable_Jeff, I also use the NASB and the ESV, together one can find the truths that scripture affords, especially with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I tried using the Holy Spirit to read scripture once. I got the same results as when I relied on my friend Harvey, the invisible 6 foot tall rabbit.