God In The Old Testament

[Nevo]

Jeremy said this in an earlier post: "I think it's what the LORD himself says over and over: "How many times would I have gathered you up, but you would not?" We seem to be perpetually taking the LORD's name in vain by using His authority to justify our own freewill-denying practices, when if we were following the true Priesthood of God, we would know that no power can or ought to be maintained by mere authority, but only by kindness and meekness and longsuffering and love unfeigned." I believe this absolutely, and Jeremy stated it nicely.

I believe this too. Today I was re-reading an essay by David Paulsen and Blake Ostler, "Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil," which expresses beautifully the idea that God is not the author of evil, and that he in fact suffers with us. By the way, this essay originally appeared alongside Daniel Peterson's "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7"—which I also highly recommend.

Also worth a look, in my opinion, Terence Fretheim's The Suffering of God, Clark Pinnock's The Most Moved Mover, and John Sanders's The God Who Risks. These books and articles describe a Being that I can worship wholeheartedly.

[Ron Beron]

One of the problems we are facing here is considering the bible to be a single book instead of a library of books. Each one is unique and distinct. Some extol God kindness and mercy while others discuss a vengeful deity. If taken collectively the bible seems to contradict itself many times over, but when taken individually we start to see a mosaic of ideas and concepts that are not necessarily meant to be dictums but concepts for discussion and contemplation. In Timothy Beal's interesting book, "The Rise and Fall of the Bible", he calls the bible "not a book of answers, but a library of questions." which it certainly is. He further states that the bible in it's "failure as a bok of answers or font of univocal truth , the Bible opens itself to mystery. It is faithful not to the answer but to the question that takes you the edge of knowing. 'There is a crack in everything.' declares another great songwriter and theologian, Leonard Cohen. 'That's how the light get in.'"

[altersteve]

Refs please.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

Sorry, I thought that verse was in Leviticus.

Edited February 16, 2012 by altersteve

[zerinus]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

Sorry, I thought that verse was in Leviticus.

That is what happens when you read the thing with a myopic eye, and don't look at the context that stares you in the face:

Deuteronomy 22:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

[zerinus]

I've been hearing that a lot on this forum. Apparently, asserting that someone is disingenuous is acceptable here. And people make this accusation so easily!

Here comes more disingenuous comments from Rob Bowman!

Your reply simply ignores everything I said and instead tries to change the subject to the views of the church fathers. If you'll think hard about it, you'll realize that their views, while interesting, are logically irrelevant to the question of whether the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism or polytheism.

This is what you had said, which is what I was replying to:

The first thing that I notice is that whereas most Mormons seem comfortable negating "one God" statements, these same Mormons rarely if ever will negate the "many Gods" statements. That is, they will assert that it is not the case that there is only one God, but they will rarely assert that it is not the case that there are many Gods. This disparity appears to demonstrate that for those Mormons, the "many Gods" statements are primary and controlling.

Second, I observe that what most Mormons do is to shoehorn the "one God" affirmations into a "many Gods" context (and not the other way around). Thus, they offer such explanations as: the many Gods are "one God" in the sense that they are "one in purpose"; the many Gods are "one God" meaning "one Godhead," where "Godhead" means a ruling triumvirate of deities; and so on. (Wade's explanation may be one of these or he may have another explanation he prefers.) What is quite evident, in all such explanations, is that "one God" is not understood to mean "one God," whereas "many Gods" is taken as unproblematically meaning "many Gods." I therefore conclude that Mormons who use such explanations actually believe that there are many Gods and do not really believe that there is just one God, even though they affirm their acceptance of those words in the Book of Mormon (with the stipulated explanation).

For the two reasons explained above, it is my considered opinion that most Mormons, despite their professed acceptance of the "one God" statements in the Book of Mormon, do not actually believe in one God as the object of their faith. They are not monotheists.

This is as irrelevant to whether the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism/polytheism as the reply that I gave to it. The reply was addressed to your comment, and was appropriate to it. Your real difficulty Rob is that you believe in a dead and apostate religion which has lost touch with the Divine, and you are at a loss to know how to defend it. You are throwing furniture around, not acting as an true advocate of your faith. I would cut my losses if I were you and believe in the real thing. Save yourself from further embarrassment.

Edited February 16, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Hey, an argument that actually appeals to the Book of Mormon text. I like it.

Huh. I can think of better ones:

2 Nnephi 31:

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: . . .

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: . . .

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

3 Nephi 11:

5 And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

So was Jesus talking about Himself, addressing Himself, introducing Himself in these verses?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

This is as irrelevant to whether the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism/polytheism as the reply that I gave to it. The reply was addressed to your comment, and was appropriate to it. Your real difficulty Rob is that you believe in a dead and apostate religion which has lost touch with the Divine, and you are at a loss to know how to defend it. You are throwing furniture around, not acting as an true advocate of your faith. I would cut my losses if I were you and believe in the real thing. Save yourself from further embarrassment.

What it means for a statement or argument to be relevant seems to elude you, and I doubt that I can help you understand it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Huh. I can think of better ones:

2 Nnephi 31:

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: . . .

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: . . .

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

3 Nephi 11:

5 And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

So was Jesus talking about Himself, addressing Himself, introducing Himself in these verses?

No, it doesn't seem so. But these passages do not contradict the Book of Mormon statements that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God. I understand these passages that distinguish the Father and the Son as consistent with the rough trinitarianism that one finds throughout the Book of Mormon (with some modalistic statements and explanations thrown into the mix).

Edited February 16, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Ron,

You wrote:

One of the problems we are facing here is considering the bible to be a single book instead of a library of books. Each one is unique and distinct. Some extol God kindness and mercy while others discuss a vengeful deity. If taken collectively the bible seems to contradict itself many times over, but when taken individually we start to see a mosaic of ideas and concepts that are not necessarily meant to be dictums but concepts for discussion and contemplation. In Timothy Beal's interesting book, "The Rise and Fall of the Bible", he calls the bible "not a book of answers, but a library of questions." which it certainly is. He further states that the bible in it's "failure as a bok of answers or font of univocal truth , the Bible opens itself to mystery. It is faithful not to the answer but to the question that takes you the edge of knowing. 'There is a crack in everything.' declares another great songwriter and theologian, Leonard Cohen. 'That's how the light get in.'"

This is an extremely common, but also extremely simplistic view of the Bible. Yes, it is a collection of books, not a single book. But there is a theological coherence across the canon. Furthermore, many of the biblical authors affirm both the "vengeance" and the "mercy" of God. Indeed, Jesus himself affirmed both. You cannot escape the doctrine of God's wrath and vengeance against sinners in the Bible by dismissing it as the view of some biblical authors but not others.

[wenglund]

But if something is written in the OT, it was intended to be a message by someone. The important thing in my view is to isolate the messages from God from those who piggybacked their own agendas on to his so we can pay attention to what God wants us to learn. Or do you believe that pretty much everything in the OT represents God's intent clearly?

I don't know that we are given enough information to discern whether someone or some people throughout the ages piggybacked their own agenda into the Old Testament and/or whether we now are imposing our own agenda onto the Old Testament.

The good news to me is that it doesn't matter. We can still get God's message without discerning whether or what is being biggybacked.

What I am saying is that, to me, there is a reason we have a canon of scripture, and there is a reason (the same reason) the Old Testament is included in that canon, and that reason, as I see things, is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. As long as the way in which we prayerfully and in the Spirit read the Old Testament, moves us towards that end, there is a good chance that we are getting the message of God. Yet, if the way in which we read the Old Testament takes us away from Christ and diminishes our spiritual faith, then it is likely that we are missing the message of God, and instead we are imposing our own agenda onto the Old Testament.

Some people see participating in genocide, etc. as a sign of spiritual sickness or at least contributing to spiritual sickness. I think many of the scriptures and historical accounts where it is the Saints that are the victims being murdered for their faith, etc. support this view. If so, then I think it becomes very important to figure out how to avoid making the same error, including in our hearts and minds as to whether or not we accept such actions as appropriate, to avoid spiritual sickness and death. Some may see the only necessary approach to protect oneself spiritually is to make sure one is on the side of God. I am not so sure. And it can become particularly problematic if we simply accept someone's statement that they are directed by God and not find out for oneself if this is true, whether it happened in the past or present.

While I think that is a worthy goal, I am not sure the Old Testament is intended to assist us in making that determination for ourselves in the here and now. Again, we are given way too little information to look back several thousand years and rightly judge what may or may not have been acceptable at that time. Chances are, with the dearth of information and the distance in time and culture and circumstances between us and Old Testament peoples, we may misjudge things.

Again, the good news to me is that we don't need to judge the actions of Old Testament peoples in order for us, today, to develop within us a clear moral compass for rightly discerning what is acceptable or not in our personal experience and to some extent in the world around us. We have the light of Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost, ancient and modern scriptures that convey general precepts, and inspired living prophets, leaders, and teachers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 16, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wade wrote: That's some talent. I will pass over Wade's repetitive claims about fact and opinion, which add nothing new, and get to the point, such as it is, that he attempts to make. Wade wrote: Ah, cognitive dissonance. In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have eleven explicit affirmations of mono-the-ism (one-God-ism) and zero affirmations of any other the-ism, such as polytheism. Wade missed that second premise of my argument. Given eleven explicit affirmations of one God and zero affirmations of the existence of other gods, I conclude that the Book of Mormon indeed teaches one-God-ism, that is, monotheism. However, in the case of most Mormons post-1844, committed somehow to believing both the Book of Mormon theological statements and Joseph Smith's later explicit denials of one-God-ism in favor of explicit polytheism, we have a different situation. Given affirmations of "one God" and affirmations of "many Gods" by the same people at the same time, we must look more carefully to see which of these two affirmations, if either, the affirming party seems to regard as primary or controlling and how they interpret these statements. The first thing that I notice is that whereas most Mormons seem comfortable negating "one God" statements, these same Mormons rarely if ever will negate the "many Gods" statements. That is, they will assert that it is not the case that there is only one God, but they will rarely assert that it is not the case that there are many Gods. This disparity appears to demonstrate that for those Mormons, the "many Gods" statements are primary and controlling. Second, I observe that what most Mormons do is to shoehorn the "one God" affirmations into a "many Gods" context (and not the other way around). Thus, they offer such explanations as: the many Gods are "one God" in the sense that they are "one in purpose"; the many Gods are "one God" meaning "one Godhead," where "Godhead" means a ruling triumvirate of deities; and so on. (Wade's explanation may be one of these or he may have another explanation he prefers.) What is quite evident, in all such explanations, is that "one God" is not understood to mean "one God," whereas "many Gods" is taken as unproblematically meaning "many Gods." I therefore conclude that Mormons who use such explanations actually believe that there are many Gods and do not really believe that there is just one God, even though they affirm their acceptance of those words in the Book of Mormon (with the stipulated explanation). For the two reasons explained above, it is my considered opinion that most Mormons, despite their professed acceptance of the "one God" statements in the Book of Mormon, do not actually believe in one God as the object of their faith. They are not monotheists. Wade wrote: I have provided textual data from the Book of Mormon supporting my "interpretation" of the Book of Mormon as teaching monotheism. Wade has not provided textual data from the Book of Mormon supporting his claim that the Book of Mormon does not teach monotheism. That is the difference, and that is why the burden of proof, for the time being at least, rests on him. Wade wrote: Ironically, Wade is here implicitly attributing to me an opinion I did not express. I did not express the opinion that Wade wishes only facts to be stated in this forum. I simply suggested that if all posters limited themselves to making statements that would pass Wade's standards for being facts this would be a very quiet forum. Let me, though, in the interests of clarity amend my statement: If all posters refrained from asserting as fact statements that would not pass Wade's standards for being facts, it is my opinion that very few assertions of fact would ever be made here.

Out of respect for the OP, and with the intent of not contributing further to this inane tangent, I won't respond to these remarkably over-simplified comments, but I would instead invite Rob to contribute to the subject of the thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Skylla]

Zerinus is out of the thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Out of respect for the OP, and with the intent of not contributing further to this inane tangent, I won't respond to these remarkably over-simplified comments, but I would instead invite Rob to contribute to the subject of the thread.

I have done so in a couple of ways. (1) I have responded to criticisms of the Old Testament's portrayal of God by recommending some good resources on the subject by an evangelical scholar, Paul Copan, whose work in this area is currently getting a lot of attention. (2) In response to Jeremy's citation of Kevin Christiansen's work on the theology of the Book of Mormon in comparison to the Old Testament, I commented on why I don't find Kevin's work persuasive. It was in that context that I commented on the Book of Mormon being monotheistic, not polytheistic. Since that issue is crucial to Kevin's argument concerning the relationship between the view of God in the Book of Mormon and that in the Old Testament, my comment was not at all a tangent, let alone an inane one.

[wenglund]

Well Moses seems to have had no such qualms. He was livid when the Israelite armies spared the Midianite women "and all their little ones." His verdict? "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18). Classy.

This strikes at the heart of what I am trying to say. I am not sure these passages contain sufficient information to put us in a position to rightly judge Moses, let alone God. And, I have serious doubt that these passages were intended for us to make such judgments, even though that is what many of us do.

What, then, might their intent be? Aside from the general intent in bringing us to Christ, perhaps their specific intent may be different for different people depending upon where we each may be in our progression in spiritual faith and our personal need for growth. What I draw specifically from this passage at this time is that God and his chosen leaders take our spiritual lives and our obedience to him very seriously, and we should too.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 16, 2012 by wenglund

[ERMD]

Moses 6 and 7 help me with this issue tremendously.

Edited February 16, 2012 by ERMD

[Nevo]

Aside from the general intent in bringing us to Christ...

If the intent of these verses, which contemplate the murder, enslavement, and rape of children, is to bring people to Christ, then I'd say they're unlikely to achieve their objective. But I'm glad you find value in them.

[wenglund]

Moses 6 and 7 help me with this issue tremendously.

Yes, well, those are just the musing of a "wild man among us."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If the intent of these verses, which contemplate the murder, enslavement, and rape of children, is to bring people to Christ, then I'd say they're unlikely to achieve their objective. But I'm glad you find value in them.

Certainly, they are unlikely to achieve their objective if they are viewed through the spiritually myopic eyes of 21st century moral indignation. Some people may, and have, likewise thought it unlikely that scriptures about the sacrament would bring us to Christ given their contemplation of cannibalism. But, as I said, looking at the scriptures in this way may not fit their intent. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Edited February 17, 2012 by wenglund

[Maidservant]

I believe this too. Today I was re-reading an essay by David Paulsen and Blake Ostler, "Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil," which expresses beautifully the idea that God is not the author of evil, and that he in fact suffers with us. By the way, this essay originally appeared alongside Daniel Peterson's "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7"—which I also highly recommend.

Also worth a look, in my opinion, Terence Fretheim's The Suffering of God, Clark Pinnock's The Most Moved Mover, and John Sanders's The God Who Risks. These books and articles describe a Being that I can worship wholeheartedly.

Thanks. I am at least googling all of these things. By the way, I might even go farther than this, as I am open to a God that needs to be held accountable and needs our help. I often engage with him this way (for better or worse). Then, there is always . . . God IS us. In which case, the OT remains highly relevant for that very reason. Anyway, off for more reading and thinking.

One of the problems we are facing here is considering the bible to be a single book instead of a library of books. Each one is unique and distinct.

I agree with you, and on one level this is the best reading. However, while acknowledging that, I nevertheless have found that the Bible as a whole does (miraculously? deliberately? sacredly?) work together in a way that one would not first imagine, OTHER than just having a basic message. But that each is a piece of a puzzle that is put in place carefully. But that's me.

he calls the bible "not a book of answers, but a library of questions." which it certainly is. He further states that the bible in it's "failure as a bok of answers or font of univocal truth , the Bible opens itself to mystery. It is faithful not to the answer but to the question that takes you the edge of knowing. 'There is a crack in everything.' declares another great songwriter and theologian, Leonard Cohen. 'That's how the light get in.'"

Bingo. Love this .

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Hey, an argument that actually appeals to the Book of Mormon text. I like it.

In none of the four Book of Mormon passages where this title appears do we find "the Most High God" described as having that position in relation to other supernatural beings. I realize that the language in and of itself might seem to imply "less high gods," but this is an inference from the words that I do not think is correct at all.

I like you, Rob. I’m being very sincere when I state that in terms of Evangelical critics of Mormonism, you are the best. But in so stating, that description intrinsically means that there MUST exist other Evangelical critics of Mormonism besides you that are not as intelligent and capable (something I believe to be true).

I think you get the point…

One could never be “the Most high God” unless there existed other less exalted gods. Honestly, I don’t see how these expressions could be read in any other way.

"Most High" might be a descriptor that simply expresses the fact that God occupies the highest position in all existence. In fact, something like 40 times in the Bible, "the Most High" stands by itself as a title for God (compare 15 times where he is called "God Most High" or "the Most High God").

Sticking to the text, your argument focuses upon the Book of Mormon, and it’s alleged radical monotheism. Importantly, the expression I referenced always appears as “the Most High God.”

To be precise, in the King James Version, the phrase “most high” appears a total of 49 times (only five times in the New Testament). A text such as Hebrews 7:1 refers to Israel’s deity as literally the hupsistou, i.e. “highest” God (note the comparable expression in Luke 1:32 which translates the term as “Highest”).

Most of the OT expressions are in fact “most high God.” KJ references to Israel’s deity as “the most High” in the OT are simply a translation of the Hebrew divine title, Elyon. As explained by Bible scholars E.E. Elnes and P. D Miller, Elyon derives “from the Hebrew verb ala, meaning ‘to ascend,’” and in the OT, it “may be used either as an adjective, describing something that is spatially higher than something else (‘upper,’ ‘highest), or as a substantive, used primarily in reference to the “most high” deity;" in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill), 560.

So the expression appears biblically as a reference to the highest or most high of all the gods.

Thus "the Most High God" actually appears in the Bible to be a compound name or title comparable to "the Almighty God," which is not distinguishing him from "mighty gods" but again combines two titles, "the Almighty" and "God," for the same deity.

I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. The etymology for the Biblical title Shadday and its NT cognates is a complex issue, but my sense is that scholarly consensus would in fact view this term, which refers to god’s spatial dominion, as distinguishing Israel’s deity’s from other gods.

If "Most High" ever did function as a qualifier for "God" to distinguish him from lesser gods, this function does not seem to apply to its usage in the Bible, and it is even less likely in the Book of Mormon, which simply uses a variety of biblical titles and other descriptors for God

The meaning of the biblical title “Most High” is made clear via texts such as Psalm 82:6, which refers to the lesser gods as the children of the Most High.

Hence, as illustrated, the biblical substantive clearly does function as a qualifier for God to distinguish him from lesser deities, and accepting the legitimacy of your premise that the Book of Mormon uses a variety of biblical titles and other descriptor for God, I see no reason whatsoever why the references to “the Most High God” in the Book of Mormon should be treated any differently.

So despite the fact that you are in my mind, the best Evangelical critic of Mormonism, like arguments raised by those of a lesser status, I still think your reading on this issue is problematic.

No offense.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Sorry for the typos in that last post. I'm surprised that this forum doesn't allow for quick edits.

[LeSellers]

Sorry for the typos in that last post. I'm surprised that this forum doesn't allow for quick edits.

It does, but you have to have 25 posts before the feature is activated for you.

I suggest "A Three-Word Story" in Social Hall.

But, please, read at least a few posts prior to yours before adding your two cents, er, three words. It is more enjoyable if the tale progresses smoothly.

Meanwhile, in Cleveland, ...

Lehi

Edited February 16, 2012 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

That is what happens when you read the thing with a myopic eye, and don't look at the context that stares you in the face:

Deuteronomy 22:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

It doesn't change anything. It still says that if a man rapes a betrothed virgin woman in the city, then both of them have to be stoned to death, the man because he's a rapist and the woman because she didn't cry for help.

Edited February 17, 2012 by altersteve

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

You wrote:

This is an extremely common, but also extremely simplistic view of the Bible. Yes, it is a collection of books, not a single book. But there is a theological coherence across the canon. Furthermore, many of the biblical authors affirm both the "vengeance" and the "mercy" of God. Indeed, Jesus himself affirmed both. You cannot escape the doctrine of God's wrath and vengeance against sinners in the Bible by dismissing it as the view of some biblical authors but not others.

I disagree that there is a coherence in any way across the canon. If we speak directly on the mercies and vengences of God then we see a wide disparity of belief from the anger presented in Exodus to the varigations of God's meanness in the testing of Job to the outright ultimate love presented in the death of Jesus. We could look at other doctrinal shifts and evolutions not only in the nature of God, but in the perception of God, the monolatrism of the OT, and others, but for now there is a real and distinct disconnect between the vengence showed in Exodus and Joshua and the later meriful nature of God in subsequent volumes.

[guitarist]

That is what happens when you read the thing with a myopic eye, and don't look at the context that stares you in the face:

Deuteronomy 22:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

It doesn't change anything. It still says that if a man rapes a betrothed virgin woman in the city, then both of them have to be stoned to death, the man because he's a rapist and the woman because she didn't cry for help.

I think the point in these scriptures (that I've highlighted) is that the one in the city cried not, implying that she was submissive in the matter (she may or may not have been out and about to do the dirty deed, but when it was brought upon her, she didn't really resist). It's not quite rape if the other person isn't opposed to it. The one in the field has the additional mention of being forced, the city one does not.