Reading the Old Testament is an exercise . . .

[volgadon]

I think the OT is a horrible collection of the most awful and infantile fairy tales ever committed to writing.

Could you explain what is infantile about them?

[Deborah]

Could you explain what is infantile about them?

Ditto! The Bible is for mature audiences or adult supervision.

I am planning to start reading the OT again after many years once I finish the BOM. I love reading about those times and people and I think it a little strange everyone is getting so bent out of shape over it. Those were indeed different times and the times themselves were full of violence and harshness so to judge them by our sissy sensibilities is rather juvenile. God worked with the people then the way that was needed to get them on the right track. We should not even be comparing our morality with what they had to face day to day.

[cinepro]

You can always use this story as a object lesson in FHE to keep the kids obedient...

In a Hansel and Gretal sort of way.

2 Kings 2:23-24 is a good one for teaching kids to respect Church leaders. (I was shown this particular story by a Primary teacher when my friends and I started referring to President Kimball as President "Cornball". We stopped! )

[divinenature]

I assume you mean Shechem and Dinah? A close look at the text seems to indicate that this wasn't rape, but seduction, and that they both cared for each other.

No. Not even close. I was referring to the Law of Moses straight from the mouth of God-or so says the text. A rapist must purchase the victim from her father for 30 or 50 shekels. Oh, there are also instances when a rape victim must be stoned to death along with the perp.

God also gives women over for rape. He also promises that women will be available for ravaging.

This stuff demands that we look at the cultural context and not just believe that God commanded it just because the author says so.

[sleepyhead]

If you reject the non-bilical accounts of Abraham, where do we see that?

Hello volgadon,

me>>>My interpretation is that God stood up for these men and women because they were willing to place themselves in harmsway by speaking to the powers that be, what was, or what they believed to be God's word. That is/was the basis for him choosing to support anyone.<<<

The biblical account of Abraham or any of the patriarchs is pretty sparse in that it doesn't cover their entire lifetimes. I suppose the closest event to support my view with regards to Abraham was that after he was willing to sacrifice his son God promised him he would be the father of many nations. Joseph while in Egypt refused to have intercourse with his masters wife and God protected him.

Do you have an alternate theory that you would like to share?

[volgadon]

So what about Jacob? How does he fit into your criteria?

[David T]

I think it was an unfortunate decision that the early Christians made to include the Hebrew bible (also the Revelation of John) in the compilation that became the traditional Bible. I see little of value there, and much of the evil that has been done in the name of religion is justified using the OT.

The stories and teachings of Jesus and the apostles should have been sufficient as Christian scripture, and the world would have been better off. Of course those books should be read to gain a historical perspective, but not necessarily revered as holy scripture.

I also strongly disagree. The Book of Revelation is an absolutely essential Christian text. It is, after all, the only book of the New Testament that is said to come directly from the visions of Jesus Christ that he himself recieved from the Father. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass" - and familiarity of Old Testament Prophecy and Apocalyptic imagery is essential to clarifying this essential text. (The Gospel of John is a companion to, and interpretive key to The Revelation - without The Revelation, much of John goes unexplained!)

[Ariarates]

Could you explain what is infantile about them?

In general, I think the stories of the OT are rather one-dimensional. Hero is called of God but feels inadequate (being just a sheperd boy and all), hero has a tough time among the heathens, hero rises to the occasion and smites the heathens with a divine weapon of mass destruction (most effective against innocent babes), all the bad guys die, Jaweh rulez, jada jada jada.

Apart from not being a literary masterpiece most of the time, which could be forgiven any book that contained some fascinating philosophical insights (anyone tried to plough through Kant lately?), it also misses virtually all relevance for our time and place. As the OP pointed out, half the time you're sitting there clenching your behind and trying to come up with even the slightest justification for whatever crime against humanity is being perpetrated in the name of God. Strip that from what you're reading, and you're left with a bunch of antiquated cliches about sparing the rod or marrying your dead brother's wife.

Good grief...

Of course, this is an unbalanced rant and there are some real gems in the OT as well - it's just that there are so few of them in between so much cr@p - and you can't even appreciate most of them if your not a Hebrew-reading biblical historian with a secondary PhD in literary criticism.

[volgadon]

No. Not even close. I was referring to the Law of Moses straight from the mouth of God-or so says the text. A rapist must purchase the victim from her father for 30 or 50 shekels. Oh, there are also instances when a rape victim must be stoned to death along with the perp.

Do you realise what a staggering sum 50 shekels of silver was?

The father though is at liberty to turn down the offer.

This law was to ensure the girl's economic wellbeing, as the chances of her finding a husband (and thus a support system) were slim after a rape. The conditions also mean that a rapist will think twice. This law applies not only to rape, but to seduction as well. The rapist is obligated to recompense the family AND support the girl.

The law about a rape victim being put to death applied to affianced girls, whose status was much the same as a wife's. If she didn't cry out for help when she could have, then it is quite possible that this wasn't rape.

God also gives women over for rape. He also promises that women will be available for ravaging.

Could we stick to particular cases?

This stuff demands that we look at the cultural context and not just believe that God commanded it just because the author says so.

It demands that we see why God commanded it in the cultural context.

[divinenature]

Do you realise what a staggering sum 50 shekels of silver was?

The father though is at liberty to turn down the offer.

But not the victim.

This law was to ensure the girl's economic wellbeing, as the chances of her finding a husband (and thus a support system) were slim after a rape.

Yes, for why would the father want to keep the damaged goods.

The conditions also mean that a rapist will think twice. This law applies not only to rape, but to seduction as well. The rapist is obligated to recompense the family AND support the girl.

Recompense the FATHER, not the family. Support the girl and continue to rape her for the rest of the "marriage." Oh, and only rape a girl whom you want to keep.

The law about a rape victim being put to death applied to affianced girls, whose status was much the same as a wife's. If she didn't cry out for help when she could have, then it is quite possible that this wasn't rape.

Uh. Guess you don't know much about rape. Hand over the mouth works wonders, as do weapons. Or perhaps you subscribe to the belief that unless you "die trying to save your virtue" you aren't worthy of living anyway.

A lot of rapes go unreported even today. Does that mean it wasn't rape? No. Rape today is just as traumatizing and humiliating as it was in anient times. It even claims that as one of the reasons for the rapist to marry her-because he humiliated her. Nice.

Could we stick to particular cases?

I guess. My original comment encompassed many general themes presented in the OT. I suppose we could prove the point of this thread by having you justify each instance of atrocious behavior.

It demands that we see why God commanded it in the cultural context.

Why did God command that a rape victim be purchased by her rapist and become his permanent rape victim? Because lifelong rape is better than starvation and shunning? Because the father couldn't be bothered with her maintanence? Because the rapist couldn't just pay her bills for her the rest of her life and leaver her the blank alone? Why did the dad get the money and not the girl? Why was she being PURCHASED like a slave...or prostitute?

I thought God delighted in the chastity of women.

[volgadon]

In general, I think the stories of the OT are rather one-dimensional. Hero is called of God but feels inadequate (being just a sheperd boy and all),

Wouldn't you?

What is infantile about that?

When looked at carefuly and in detail, most of the stories are far from being one-dimensional, and are often rather ambiguous.

hero has a tough time among the heathens,

Not that common of a theme. Again, what is infantile about it?

hero rises to the occasion

Not always.

and smites the heathens with a divine weapon of mass destruction (most effective against innocent babes),

Such as?

all the bad guys die,

Do they?

Jaweh rulez, jada jada jada.

Isn't that the message of ALL scriptures?

Apart from not being a literary masterpiece most of the time,

If nothing else, the Hebrew Bible is an astounding piece of literature. I had 11 years in school of it as literature. Perhaps you need to take a closer look at things like exposition.

which could be forgiven any book that contained some fascinating philosophical insights (anyone tried to plough through Kant lately?), it also misses virtually all relevance for our time and place.

Only because you seem indisposed to look for any relevance. Of course the Bible isn't rewarding to those who won't put effort into it.

Listen to Handel. Read Tchernichovsky, Meir Shalev, Elie Wiesel, Meir Ariel, these are but a few off the top of my mind who would strongly disagree with you. With the exception of Handel, all atheists or agnostics.

As the OP pointed out, half the time you're sitting there clenching your behind and trying to come up with even the slightest justification for whatever crime against humanity is being perpetrated in the name of God. Strip that from what you're reading, and you're left with a bunch of antiquated cliches about sparing the rod or marrying your dead brother's wife.

Or, you could try seeing yourself in their shoes, or transposing them to current situations. I highly reccomend both excersizes.

Good grief...

That is kind of what i feel after reading this.

Of course, this is an unbalanced rant and there are some real gems in the OT as well - it's just that there are so few of them in between so much cr@p - and you can't even appreciate most of them if your not a Hebrew-reading biblical historian with a secondary PhD in literary criticism.

The amount of gems far outweighs the dross.

Granted, I may be a native Hebrew speaker, but I don't even have a BA yet, let alone a PhD.

[volgadon]

Sad to say, but the first priority for many is money. If one stoops to rape, chances are that one is not very moral, so putting the wallet at risk is an excellent deterent.

But not the victim.

Marriage was arranged through the father. Most fathers probably did consider the feelings of their daughters.

Yes, for why would the father want to keep the damaged goods.

Not at all the point I was making. What happens when the father grows old, what happens when she grows old?

Recompense the FATHER, not the family.

The father WAS the family, or rather, the representative of the family.

Support the girl and continue to rape her for the rest of the "marriage."

It is not a pretty situation, nobody claims it is. Perhaps your oh-too-fine 21st century sensibilities are offended by pragmatism. The point of laws is if a bad situation can't be prevented, to at least make the most of it.

Oh, and only rape a girl whom you want to keep.

If you rape a girl, you are going to be responsible for her for the rest of your life. Hopefully that should deter all but the worst scumbags.

Uh. Guess you don't know much about rape.

You do?

Hand over the mouth works wonders, as do weapons.

And these laws dealt with the maximum penalty. It is overly simplistic to suppose that cases weren't investigated or that the maximum penalty was always inflicted.

Or perhaps you subscribe to the belief that unless you "die trying to save your virtue" you aren't worthy of living anyway.

No, and I don't much like your self-righteous strawmen you try and foist on me.

A lot of rapes go unreported even today. Does that mean it wasn't rape? No.

Is every reported case of rape, actually rape?

Rape today is just as traumatizing and humiliating as it was in anient times.

It even claims that as one of the reasons for the rapist to marry her-because he humiliated her. Nice.

Chances are that nobody else would marry her. Humiliation means lowering her status and worth. You did that, you make recompence. Pure and simple.

I guess. My original comment encompassed many general themes presented in the OT. I suppose we could prove the point of this thread by having you justify each instance of atrocious behavior.

I'm not too fond of generalisations.

Why did God command that a rape victim be purchased by her rapist and become his permanent rape victim? Because lifelong rape is better than starvation and shunning? Because the father couldn't be bothered with her maintanence? Because the rapist couldn't just pay her bills for her the rest of her life and leaver her the blank alone? Why did the dad get the money and not the girl? Why was she being PURCHASED like a slave...or prostitute?

I thought God delighted in the chastity of women.

Perhaps if you were to leave your holier-than-people-in-the-past attituude behind (IE your presentism), you might reach an answer.

[USU78]

Sad to say, but the first priority for many is money. If one stoops to rape, chances are that one is not very moral, so putting the wallet at risk is an excellent deterent.

And it isn't just the one-time compensation for the paterfamilias. The rapist has to support his victim for her lifetime and give her the status of legal wife.

These are not insignificant things no matter when or where you are.

Deut. 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

[divinenature]

Sad to say, but the first priority for many is money. If one stoops to rape, chances are that one is not very moral, so putting the wallet at risk is an excellent deterent.

CFR that large fines are an "excellent" deterent of rape.

Marriage was arranged through the father. Most fathers probably did consider the feelings of their daughters.

CFR that "most" fathers anciently "probably" considered the feelings of their daughters who had been raped.

Not at all the point I was making. What happens when the father grows old, what happens when she grows old?

The rapist giving the victim a large sum of money and the daughter receiving a land inheritance from her father would take care of her very well.

The father WAS the family, or rather, the representative of the family.

Again, the money could have been used by the girl to set up her own household so she wouldn't have to rely on the rapist.

It is not a pretty situation, nobody claims it is. Perhaps your oh-too-fine 21st century sensibilities are offended by pragmatism. The point of laws is if a bad situation can't be prevented, to at least make the most of it.

Why be rude?

I would argue that "making the most of it" would be incredibly difficult for the victim in this particular situation.

If you rape a girl, you are going to be responsible for her for the rest of your life. Hopefully that should deter all but the worst scumbags.

Rape isn't about sex. It is about violence, power and domination. So, the fact that this law would deter all but the "worst scumbags" makes this law even worse.

You do?

Yes.

And these laws dealt with the maximum penalty. It is overly simplistic to suppose that cases weren't investigated or that the maximum penalty was always inflicted.

Really, the point is that this law suppposedly came from God. I'm sure it was all done with witnesses and checking the girl to see if she was intact or not. I am really only interested in why someone thinks God would set this law.

No, and I don't much like your self-righteous strawmen you try and foist on me.

I was truly curious. There have been several statements by GA's and prophets that people should rather die than give up their virtue. I simply wondered if you were one of them. I can provide some statments if you like.

I personally do not believe a rape victim loses her chastity or virtue, but the BoM presents a differing opinion.

Moroni 9:9 "... For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue.."

Is every reported case of rape, actually rape?

I believe the current statistics/belief is no. I guess I find it more concerning that an estimated 90% of Provo rapesare not reported to police.

Chances are that nobody else would marry her.quote]

So what? So now she has to be strapped to a low life for, what, eternity?

I'm not too fond of generalisations.

Understood.

Perhaps if you were to leave your holier-than-people-in-the-past attituude behind (IE your presentism), you might reach an answer.

See, my answer is that God did not command that law. You are the one arguing for divine origin.

The people in the past are just people. We have evolved a bit since then. Does that make us holier? You are the one who suggested that. However, if these are laws straight from God believers have to figure out what that means. Maybe God is evolving, too. Maybe he started out commanding human sacrifice, then animal, then our internal selves. I'm glad God evolves right along with us.

[sleepyhead]

So what about Jacob? How does he fit into your criteria?

Hello volgadon

consig>>>In teaching the first half (so far) of Genesis in Gospel Doctrine, and listening to the comments from class members, I am beginning to think that, for many, reading the Old Testament is an exercise in justifying bad behavior.....More like Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Laban, and pretty much all Jacob's 12-sons (Judah gets special mention) with the possible exception of Joseph.<<<

me>>>I'm not sure why you have Rebekah, Jacob and Laban on your list.<<<

you>>>So what about Jacob? How does he fit into your criteria?<<<

When consig defines what the bad behaviour was with regards to Jacob I'll respond.

[volgadon]

CFR that large fines are an "excellent" deterent of rape.

Shall I start CFRing you on everything?

pg. 237 of Morris Silver's Prophets and Markets: the Political Economy of Ancient Israel.

a new cloak or jacket of good quality was worth from 12 to 15 shekels of silver while, on the average, an ox was worth 10 shekels, an *** 6.67 shekels, and a sheep 1.33 shekels of silver.

CFR that "most" fathers anciently "probably" considered the feelings of their daughters who had been raped.

Stands to reason. as you say later on in this post, people in the past are just people. There, that is my answer to your CFR- you yourself.

The rapist giving the victim a large sum of money and the daughter receiving a land inheritance from her father would take care of her very well.

Again, the money could have been used by the girl to set up her own household so she wouldn't have to rely on the rapist.

Hopelessly naive.

Why be rude?

I would argue that "making the most of it" would be incredibly difficult for the victim in this particular situation.

Rape isn't about sex. It is about violence, power and domination. So, the fact that this law would deter all but the "worst scumbags" makes this law even worse.

There isn't a single law ever devised that would deter the very worst.

Does capital punishment deter the worst murderers?

Really, the point is that this law suppposedly came from God. I'm sure it was all done with witnesses and checking the girl to see if she was intact or not. I am really only interested in why someone thinks God would set this law.

I won't play your silly CFR game and demand one from you, so just tell me why you think he couldn't or wouldn't institute such laws.

I was truly curious. There have been several statements by GA's and prophets that people should rather die than give up their virtue. I simply wondered if you were one of them. I can provide some statments if you like.

I personally do not believe a rape victim loses her chastity or virtue, but the BoM presents a differing opinion.

Moroni 9:9 "... For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue.."

How do you think a victim feels?

I believe the current statistics/belief is no. I guess I find it more concerning that an estimated 90% of Provo rapesare not reported to police.

Truly a shame.

Now, is such the case in a small, crowded family complex with people about the whole day?

see, my answer is that God did not command that law. You are the one arguing for divine origin.

The people in the past are just people. We have evolved a bit since then. Does that make us holier? You are the one who suggested that. However, if these are laws straight from God believers have to figure out what that means. Maybe God is evolving, too. Maybe he started out commanding human sacrifice, then animal, then our internal selves. I'm glad God evolves right along with us.

No, I'm not the one that suggested it. Your whole attitude comes across as such.

[Ariarates]

In general, I think the stories of the OT are rather one-dimensional. Hero is called of God but feels inadequate (being just a sheperd boy and all),

Wouldn't you?

What is infantile about that?

When looked at carefuly and in detail, most of the stories are far from being one-dimensional, and are often rather ambiguous.

It

[Jason]

I seem to recall C.S. Lewis saying that those who find the Bible "infantile" are calling it so because they had infantile views of it when they first heard the stories (when they were actual infants) and haven't been able to put those childish views aside to read the text with adult eyes. They chuckle at the story of Noah or the Tower of Babel because they have childish views of how the Ark or the scattering of languages was acheived and can't get past them to reconsider the story in an adult light.

[thesometimesaint]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Jason]

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -C.S. Lewis

[Ariarates]

I seem to recall C.S. Lewis saying that those who find the Bible "infantile" are calling it so because they had infantile views of it when they first heard the stories (when they were actual infants)...

Good point.

...and haven't been able to put those childish views aside to read the text with adult eyes. They chuckle at the story of Noah or the Tower of Babel because they have childish views of how the Ark or the scattering of languages was acheived and can't get past them to reconsider the story in an adult light.

But isn't that what this thread is all about? Once you look at the OT with your adult eyes, you see how outrageously inappropriate it is for our time.

[katherine the great]

Well I absolutely love the Old Testament--especially Genesis. However, I'm not in favor of a cover to cover reading for children. I think that is why people traditionally have taught their children just these "select" stories and probably part of the reason why it is so misunderstood. I think it really has to be read with a lot of outside material and commentary to make sense. I can't believe, though, that anyone thinks that we should just toss it. It is impossible to understand our Savior's mission without understanding the purpose of Israel or the nature of our relationship to God that is so beautifully illustrated over and over in the Old Testament.

[Jason]

But isn't that what this thread is all about? Once you look at the OT with your adult eyes, you see how outrageously inappropriate it is for our time.

Strangely enough, I don't see that, no.

[volgadon]

It

[Ariarates]

It is impossible to understand our Savior's mission without understanding the purpose of Israel or the nature of our relationship to God

That's an interesting thought, could you elaborate? I remember reading somewhere that some Jewish writers maintain that the connection between OT and NT was artificially authored into the NT and that it's not in the OT itself if read from a strictly Jewish perspective (I'll see if I can dig up a reference but I make no promises...).