Best old testament interpretation books according to redditors
We found 228 Reddit comments discussing the best old testament interpretation books. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
18. Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (Copenhagen International Seminar)
2 mentions
Routledge
Basically when newton was inventing calculus in 1660 the establishment was busy convincing everyone that "j 660" meant "1660" when newton knew from observing the astronomical rotations and other observations that it had to be 660.
I don't Know if newton wrote about that specifically but you can read about the theory on the new chronology wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)
Newton did write about history himself and he attempted to correct what he saw as wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Kingdoms_Amended
https://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Revised-History-Ancient-Kingdoms/dp/0890515565
Newton was very probably aware of the work of Joseph Justus Scaliger, he would have known that nobody had attempted to write the history of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians the Jews etc until 1583. And being a mathematician he obviously new the odds of that history actually being correct were quite low. History that our mainstream modern understanding is built upon.
What you're talking about mainly sounds like Marcionism, but that is less of a denomination and more of a really old Christian heresy.
If you're having trouble reconciling God as portrayed by the Hebrew Bible with God as portrayed in Jesus in the New Testament I'd recommend you take a look at the book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the God of the Old Testament. It isn't a particularly difficult or long read and can really help illuminate some of the grodier passages in the Hebrew Bible.
That has a lot to do with the specific translation and not necessarily the text itself. But there are some fundamental changes especially in the 5th passage. That's probably a result of similar passages being combined over an extended period of time (during the compelation of Psalms). See this book for a great introduction into how the Bible as a text was composed over a long period of time.
Well, it was from their view as a "professional hunter" in africa. See, they'd take these rich white guys to places to hunt these dangerous things. Then when the noob makes a bad shot and wounds the animal, it's the Pro hunter's responsibility to track down that wounded animal and finish it. Leopards were known for NOT charging when wounded. They hid and ambushed them. 80 lbs of unnaturally strong leopard jumping on you from 4 feet. Patient, angry, hiding. Stood my hairs up. You should give em a read!
Here I'll link a couple
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Long-Grass-Hunters-Adventures/dp/0312186134
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377466847&sr=1-4
Everything by Hemingway is awesome. Capstick was a helluva writer, but there's some saying he wasn't a really good hunter.
Yes, it's loaded, but it's fair, considering that many mainstream Christian apologists explicitly do act as genocide apologists. William Lane Craig, for example, says that the Israelites did the children of their enemies no harm because they were instantly transported to heaven, and that we should feel more sorry for the soldiers who had to go through the trauma of committing genocide.
>So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
Paul Copan does much of the same in his book Is God a Moral Monster. See Thom Stark's review of that book, entitled Is God a Moral Compromiser, for more details.
Here's a couple books you could start with your research. I know one is expensive, but it's a required book for some class so price is ridiculous. I found them at my library and also there are .pdf if you look.
Plato and the creation of the Hebrew Bible
Ceasar's Messiah
The Bible unearthed
Have fun, man.
The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemmingway is fifteen dollars on amazon, though you could probably find it for cheaper. It'll likely be a great indicator of whether you want to continue with the project or not. I started there and let me tell you what, there is a reason that man is known as the master of the short story.
The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway: The Finca Vigia Edition is one of my favorite books.
Been to his house in Ketchum and his place in Key West. Would love to stroll his haunts in Cuba and Paris.
And as manly as he was, he was in pain most of the time from injuries and wounds collected from war and travel. Stoic and fierce. A literary and personal idol.
Yes absolutely!
Thanks for asking.
Here’s a few links:
The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521176670/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_bsxzDbT284DPQ
Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805210326/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VsxzDbR6AG841
Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393005348/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_RtxzDbS4V0Q07
Let This Mind Be In You: An historical study of the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017I1JE9Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VxxzDbP8JXNWA
Wow! That portion of the article reeks of an atheist agenda and is totally false. God's character has not changed. It is the same throughout the bible, from Genesis to Revelation. While it is true God allowed His people to be enslaved, it was not that He necessarily caused it. In each case, the Israelites turned from Him and began worshiping false gods and idols. God merely took His hand off them and let things happen. He ceased protecting them to show them what happens when they reject Him. But this God loved His people. When they relied on Him, He didn't let them down. They defeated armies greater than they. Their crops and livestock grew in abundance. Sickness and illness were minimal. It reads like He caused it only because He knew what would happen when He removed His protection. God's strength comes from man's weakness.
I recommend to pick up, "Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God" https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament-ebook/dp/B004EPYPY4
It was written to challenge many of the beliefs of modern atheist, but it does a good job of demonstrating the consistency of God's character.
In terms of the New Testament, this brings the good news of God's grace and extends the offer to His people to all nations. Jesus showed us who God is - a loving and nurturing God. He knows we cannot keep His commandments without His help, so He came as a man, kept the commandment so that we all can be seen as righteous in Him. Jesus is our intercessory with the Godhead just as Abraham was for Sodom and Moses was for the Israelites at Sinai. Remember passages such as (paraphrasing) 'he who puts his hand on the plough and looks back is not fit to inherit the kingdom of heaven' and 'if you love me, you'll keep my commandments'. Jesus provides ample warnings that judgement will be harsh, just as it always has been.
Jesus also said that without the Holy Spirit, the mysteries of God remain hidden. When you believe in Jesus and that He was raised from the dead, the scales are lifted from your eyes and your ears will hear. The writer of "Beyond Good and Evil" as well as Peterson is reading in the blind. They may be smart, but remember, God takes delight in confounding the wise with the foolishness of the cross.
Rabbi Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation goes in-depth over how evolution fits perfectly fine into Judaism from an Orthodox perspective.
Have you checked out Jesus on Every Page by David Murray? He has a chapter in there called "Christ's Presence" that deals with the angel of the Lord and Christophanies. This is where I got this idea from.
I don't particularly view this as incompatible with a polemic against the Gnostics. Part of the key of this is to realize that Christophanies are more than just Christ in a human form. For instance, the burning bush...Christophany. The glory of the Lord...Christophany. Thus, the Son was manifested in different ways in the Old Testament, sometimes in a human form, sometimes not in a human form. However, this changed with the incarnation when the Son assumed a human nature. This did not change following his death and resurrection.
Along with the topic of Mount Gerizim, there are a considerable number of syntactical differences that result in different pronunciations, gendering of words, and variations on singular and plural. There are also missing or extra phrases, depending on how you look at it. Of-course the stories are essentially the same, but some say the Samaritan Pentateuch is actually more precise than the Masoretic text. I wish I wasn't so tired as I've done a lot of work on Samaritan vs. Rabbinic scripture and polemics, but I'll leave you with some links that can vouch for what I'm saying, and be of more use to you than my decaffeinated attempt:
https://www.amazon.com/Torah-Jewish-Samaritan-versions-compared/dp/1904808182
https://www.amazon.com/Tradition-Kept-Literature-Robert-Anderson/dp/0801045487
^those two are essential if you want to delve deep into the topic
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/132004/the-other-torah
^this is a great overview that goes more in-depth than most articles I've seen
Note to mods: Please consider these my sources. Hope that's alright. Will try and get back to this comment in some hours with an abridged bibliography from when I was spending a lot of time studying the topic for a thesis.
---
Edit: Super late on this, but here's a link to a simplified and very abridged version (tried to remove things that would be irrelevant to OP's question) of the bibliography from the last research paper I wrote on the Samaritan community: http://paste.ubuntu.com/25335415/
There is also an anti-evolution school of thought in Eastern Orthodoxy. See Seraphim Rose's book on Genesis: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Seraphim-Rose/dp/1887904026
(Of course, not all EO share this view. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, for one, was a theistic evolutionist.)
I'm sure there's also anti-evolution Catholics out there (perhaps among the ones who think everything post-Vatican II is apostate?), but they seem to be few.
Suggestion for both you and u/AckligJDub...
Learn everything you can about the REAL origins of the bible.
Once you've learned that, your entire world-view will shift, and if you're suffering from fears of "Armageddon" that knowledge I've suggested will totally wipe out those fears.
What I'm going to post is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to modern-day knowledge about the origins of the bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vPrlX6Yx4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZECezMYug8c
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X
https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Have-Wife-Archaeology/dp/0802863949
https://www.amazon.com/King-Manasseh-Child-Sacrifice-Alttestamentliche/dp/3110179946
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2015/11/the-legacy-of-child-sacrifice-in-early-judaism-and-christianity/
Also a few videos on the characteristics of cults:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRBFhMEQFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO0vPYd9Txw&t=789s
https://www.amazon.com/Cults-Our-Midst-Continuing-Against/dp/0787967416
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygeH85P0THA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB-dJaCXAxA&t=250s
In a recent publication, The Origins of Yahwism, multiple scholars cast some doubt upon the certainty with which we can say that Yahweh originated in the South showing that earlier assertions have biased interpretations of Egyptological evidence, etc. There seems to be a broader wave of skepticism moving over the shores of origins studies these days. Old etymologies, geographies, ethnographies, etc., are showing their flaws.
I can't really give you thorough book review of this, but if you're interested in reading more about this, there's a really great book called, Show them No Mercy: 4 Views of the Caananite Genocide. It it basically a round table discussion where an author will write his/her perspective, and then the others will respond to it. Then the next author writes a chapter, then the others respond. It then continues.
If you look at the book reviews they do a good job of describing the different perspectives. It's quite helpful with explaining different perspectives.
I also have a REALLY long ppt about the book from an old lesson plan I wrote if you really want it. I don't know how to send ppts w/o email though.
Edit. I knew I had posted it before. Here's a link to an older comment of mine that describes the 4 views
For reference, here is the Hemingway book on top: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323
I own it & would recommend it.
If you haven't already seen them, there are quite a few recommendations in the Wiki. If you've been lurking here for any length of time, you've probably already come across these, but just in case: James Kugel's How to read the Bible and Richard Friedman's "Who wrote the Bible are classic introductary texts. They are fantastically expensive, but I've also enjoyed an number of the Great Courses lectures.
As for your specific focus, I obviously don't have the background of the scholars here, but of the books I've read, [Thomas Romer's Invention of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer/dp/0674504976/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541389004&sr=1-1&keywords=invention+of+god) (IIRC it's a summary of these lectures) might scratch the early formation itch, and I have just a few days ago added van der Toorn's Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible to my reading list.
For my own focus, I kind of jump around, but pretty much stick to the OT. What really draws me, and I don't even know how to articulate this in academic terms, is trying to figure out what your average Israelite actually believed and how they practiced, which doesn't exactly line up with biblical precepts. In that vein, I really enjoyed William Dever's The Lives of Ordinary People, Kugel's The Great Shift, and Jodi Magness's Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. A book I bought but haven't read yet is A History of Death in the Hebrew Bible, and I just got a whim to study the military outpost in Elephantine.
I stay away from NT study for the most part, as I feel it either veers into theological discussion, which I don't have any interest in, or it get bogged down in the minutiae of translation, which I don't have any patience for.
So, yeah, you'll find a number of members here who approach the bible from a non-devotional perspective. In the years I've been lurking it is becoming a bit less rigid in that respect; there a couple of users in particular I used to rely on to call out comments that were theologically motivated (/u/brojangles, where are you?!?), but with time you just learn to recognize the red flags.
I am puzzled and even somewhat alarmed at the rise of the so called New Atheism. My understanding of Dawkins' current position is that even moderate, tolerant, liberal Christianity must be wiped out because it gives cover to fundamentalist Christianity.
Not too long ago, I found a person online who was ragging on Isaac Newton because the Newton was so ludicrous as to believe in a 6,000 year old earth. So I asked this guy whether he had even read Newton's Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms ( http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Revised-History-Ancient-Kingdoms/dp/0890515565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290558149&sr=8-1 ). He admitted that he had not. I asked the fellow how, given that he lived before Darwin and Lyell, was Newton supposed to have come to the scientific understanding that the world was older than 6,000 (assuming that that was even Newton's position). He argued that Halley, a contemporary of Newton knew the world was older than 6,000 years because of the salinity of the ocean. I asked whether Halley had conducted any experiments on the salinity of rivers. I asked whether Halley had done any quantitative estimates of how saline the ocean would be based on various assumed ages. Apparently Halley had done neither. So then the guy starts accusing me of being ignorant of science.
Apparently the New Atheist doesn't bother to read books he is trying to refute, doesn't accept the validity of quantitative reasoning, doesn't accept the validity of experimental data and yet still somehow feels atheism is scientific.
As far as I am concerned, many "New" atheists are just fundies in a new set of clothes.
Regarding the Old Testament, here's a good book on the subject.
So it's all just a metaphor? Hard to buy that.
There are a couple of books on Amazon that address this topic, however. One is called Is God a Moral Monster? and the other is titled God Behaving Badly.
Ok cool, I was genuinely asking since verses in Leviticus (like you posted) have differing contexts, audiences, time periods and all sorts of things compared to other passages on the topic of homosexuality or homosexual acts (of which there aren't many) say in Romans.
There are a couple things I'd say about this passage by way of giving some context which I think changes it.
1 - These are laws written to the people of Israel at a specific time in history. It is clear that God goes to great lengths to keep them distinct from the peoples around them as they are transmission point for the bulk of his revealed will so far. Their writings, history, and civic systems would form the foundation upon which God would point towards Christ 1300-1400 years after these books were written. There are a lot of things God forbids that are obvious in keeping the culture separate like intermarriage or certain political alliances. Others are more cultural like tattoos, certain foods, etc. It is my firm belief that this passage is speaking of all manner of things common in neighboring cultures who worshipped Moloch and similar deities. These cultures were pretty bad and God went to great lengths to keep Israel seperate from them. If you'd like to read more about Israel's relation to its neighbors through the Old Testament narrative I recommend "The Old Testament Against Its Environment by G. Ernest Wright. https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Against-Environment-Biblical-Theology/dp/B002EBGKTS/
2 - Despite point #1, many of the things are this list are part of God's moral will for our lives. Several things on the list go against how the God has made us according to the bible and thus are both wrong (IE a transgression worthy of punishment in an eternal sense) and harmful (IE something that will not satisfy or make one happy in the long run or hurts/defrauds others, sometimes both). I think it is the consensus of biblical text that the intention of our creator was for sexuality to exist on a man/woman spectrum. Some disagree with this but I think most biblical scholars would agree that the above passage most especially in its punishments for certain acts, is for a certain place and time and not an ongoing command of any type. It is important to not just do what the bible says but also emphasize what the bible emphasizes. Such a command to enforce any kind of morality regardless of the rightness of it is really foreign the bible. God is the enforcer, we aren't really called to do such a thing. We may disagree on what's God's moral will is for our lives (or whether there is a God or that his moral will is knowable), but I think the context here paints it in a much different light than "God says it's cool to hit gays with a rock". If you'd like to read further on the topic of understanding God's actions in the Old Testament, I recommend "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan. https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/
3 - The other important context here is God's redemptive plan for humanity. Why is it so important to keep this people group a certain way over time? What could be so important that you have these books full of civic and moral hoops to jump through with harsh consequences for non-compliance? The answer is that humanity has a problem, born seperated from God by the wrong things that we do, we are under the sentence of death and unable to deal with the punishment for our actions by a just God or the alienation between us and Him due to our sin. As I said everything about ancient Israel prepares for an points directly to Jesus, God's son who came to Earth as a human and died sinless to take the punishment onto himself. Having accepted this sacrifice we can not only escape the eternal consequences of our sin but also end the alienation between us and God and have a relationship with him. This is the moment where all of humanity, every person who has or will ever live on Earth, went from having the sentence of death hanging over them to the potential to live forever and have an eternal purpose. If you'd like to read more about this I recommend Romans Chapter 1:18-2:16,3:9-8:39.
The whole book is good but I've tried to exclude some sections as you are not, I assume, a first century jew living in Rome. I'd also recommend reading it in a more modern translation. It looks like what you posted is from the King James probably? That bible was really great in 1611 but since then modern archaelogy was invented and our greater access to older texts and evolution of better historically grounded textual scholarship means that many many versions are better. I personally like the New American Standard Bible which tries to be more of a "word for word" translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in the text. It can sound a bit like Yoda so if you'd like a "Thought for Thought" translation the New Internation Version, New Living Translation, and English Standard Bible are all fine.
This might be more reply than you're looking for but at least we can agree that Twitter is perhaps not the best place for something so complex. :D Also sorry for a hastily written reply, I didn't think I'd be discussing Leviticus today.
I got kind of lazy with the links, but anyways here is my collection of Christianity related books, links etc.
Listening:
Books:
Links
>I Have completed degrees in Physics and Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst along with coursework in Archaeology, Chemistry and Biology and was a research associate in nuclear physics for a few years at the university. This, I think, puts me in a fairly balanced position to evaluate the theory for I understand full well how scientists think due to having been indoctrinated into the scientific paradigm.
Except having experience in one scientific field does not make you qualified to discuss an unrelated field. At this point, he's no better than any other layman shouting his opinion from the rooftops.
For anyone that would like a more rationalist perspective, they would be better off reading R' Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation. Slifkin isn't a biologist, but he doesn't pretend to be an expert on the matter of evolution because it is really irrelevant. The discussion that should be had, as he presents in his books, is whether Judaism can accept such an idea.
That approach is one that more people would do well to take on and the author of the above article could have saved himself much effort and embarrassment.
[Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible] (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Book-Hilarious-Disturbing-Marvelous/dp/B007K4JFKU)
by David Plotz (Author)
This guy read the whole OT and summarizes his experiences. It's worth a read because he also found it mind numbing and horrifying.
Besides Clowney and the Simeon Trust (those two are probably your best resources):
And two others that I've heard good things about, but not read myself:
Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate the sincerity of your responses.
I agree that people do not need belief in a supreme being to be kind to each other, but this is where I think our worldviews will inevitably collide due to the nature of the different paradigms.
I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that the main theme of the Bible is God’s rulership or kingdom. According to the Bible, we were created to serve, honor, and glorify God, not ourselves.
In Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel is talking to self-righteous Jewish leaders, who believe in the afterlife and think they are going to enter heaven because of their good deeds. Ezekiel essentially tells them that God isn’t going to look at their good deeds, only at the things that displeased Him, and will judge them on that basis. The self-righteous Jewish leaders thought this was unfair, because they wanted their good deeds to be weighed against their bad deeds, and were convinced that they had done more of the good deeds. Now, Ezekiel essentially tells them that God is going to count the good deeds against them too. The Jewish leaders again responded by saying this was not fair. Then Ezekiel offered a solution—if they repent of their pride, self-autonomy, and desire to exalt the self, then God will disregard all the bad deeds and thoughts they had ever committed and had, and reward them on the basis of their good deeds.
So, why were their good deeds going to be counted against them? It is because those good deeds are done by the motivation of exalting the self, not God. The worst of all sins of humanity is the sin of pride, and Isaiah (ch. 64), who also spoke to self-righteous Jewish leaders, indicated that all these good deeds are like filthy rags to God, and He will be offending by them.
A major distinguishing factor between Christianity and the other religions is that other religions require people to perform good deeds in order to get into heaven, whereas Christianity focuses on the relationship of the individual to God. If the individual places God first and is dependent on Him, then he/she will be rewarded for the good deeds; if the individual is self-autonomous, then he/she will be judged.
So it is my relationship to God that motivates me to serve Him and others. Upon repenting of my sins and receiving Jesus Christ as forgiver and leader, my heart was transformed and I had new desires. Granted, being a Christian is no walk in the park, but there is this inner peace and satisfaction of living a life that is honoring to God.
After one repents and receives Christ as forgiver and leader, he/she is justified and undergoes sanctification, a life-long process that progressively shapes the person to know Christ and be conformed to His image. All believers are morally flawed, but you should see a decrease in their character flaws and sinful desires over time, especially if they are true to their discipleship.
In terms of the questionable acts that you listed, I can see how this can be unsettling at first glance, but those events and commands are specific to those individuals at those particular periods of time, and not for us to universalize or carry out. Additionally, those judgments are not evil, because God stood for goodness in the midst of bad, wicked, and reprobate individuals and societies.
Today, we are in the age of grace and under the New Covenant.
For a specific response to 2 Kings 2, please see Why did God kill 42 lads merely for saying Elisha was bald?
And please let me know if you want more details about the trial of adultery, etc.
Also, if you’re interested, the following resources might be useful:
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Dr. Paul Copan
Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions by Kenneth R. Samples
The Bible Fast Forward: Piecing Together the Biblical Puzzle
Thank you for your message, and no offense was taken. I just want to let you know that my intent is not to re-convert you to Christianity or anything like that. I’m simply here to answer questions and provide reasons for the hope that I have. I know that the Gospel message is offensive enough.
Best regards, and your thoughts are always welcome.
David Murray has a very readable book - Jesus On Every Page that might help.
I found this searching for "old testament" and I am reluctant to step into this cesspool of a sub, but the Old Testament deserves defending. Jordan Peterson doesn't seem to understand very much since he is stuck in the degeneracy of modern culture. And his followers here are typical modern scum who can't tolerate contrary viewpoints. Anyway...
The whole point of Christianity is to anthropomorphize God as much as possible, even giving God human form in Jesus. If you don't like anthropomorphizing God, then Christianity is not for you.
While the Old Testament is full of archetypes, particularly in Genesis, you can't really understand it if you are stuck with a Western perspective and philosophy. A good book explaining the fundamental concepts of the Old Testament is this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/
I follow the Old Testament and I would be glad to answer any questions, but not in this cesspool where my karma is -25.
> For the OT bit, I think I understand what you're saying, but it's hard for me to accept that genocide was once holy for the Israelites but now deeply immoral for everyone else, if that makes sense. I guess it makes me wonder if it might become required again, and how we would know it was?
There was a specific reason (several actually) for the genocides that God ordered: for one, Israel's conquest served as God's judgment on the Canaanites (just like the Flood was judgment on the pre-Flood world or how the Assyrians was judgment on Israel). There was also a matter of God wanting the Canaanites out of the land so that Israel could better maintain its unique identity as God's people.
Now that we are in the New Covenant, instead of God using physical things, He is using a greater amount of spiritual and internal reality in his people. So instead of a physical nation of people being God's judgment against wickedness, He is more likely to use internal judgments (like what we see in Romans where God just gives up people their own sin as a form of judgment), as well as the Second Coming of Christ and the threat of hell as the ultimate judgment against wickedness. God gave us everything in the Old Testament, even the things we don't understand, as historic pictures and symbols of our lives in Christ now.
Simply put, the stuff we see in the Old Testament has seen their fulfillment in Christ in some way or another. Because God is no longer working through the unique cultural and tribal identity of Israel, He no longer needs to especially keep that national identity from being absorbed into the surrounding cultures. So the Canaan conquests are a picture of sanctification: the Christian may not be obeying God in killing Canaanites to purge the Promise Land, but he does obey God and kill the sin still present in his life.
There's no cause to "fear" that God will order any genocides from us, simply because He's moved from the point in redemptive history where those were needed for his purposes. I wouldn't call it "holy" but more pragmatic - God was using the tools from the culture he had at hand. If it had occurred in modern times, God may have used something more economically crippling for example. I'm not sure.
One good resource for examining the stuff in the Old Testament is Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan.
I suppose before I get into rambling any more, one of the things about being a Christian is trusting God even when things look odd, strange or counter-intuitive. It's easiest (or at least most natural) to apply this to when our lives don't work out how we envision, or when we have to deal with how evil interacts with us. But for the Christian, our faith (our confidence and trust in God) is probably most important when God doesn't seem to act like he "ought" too. But God has given us a huge record of His dealings with people, his faithfulness, love and mercy, as well as telling us about his justice, his holiness and his right and proper anger against wickedness - all the while He reflects that these are aspects of his goodness and love. We shouldn't feel "betrayed" when God acts in a way that feels like a gut-punch to our sensibilities. It's proper to ask questions and learn, but we've got to be careful not to judge the Judge of the Earth with our limited perspective.
I hate people who post 90 minute videos on youtube, but today I'm going to be that guy! If you're serious about wrestling through this issue, I recommend that you check out this video by a guy named Paul Copan. I don't endorse everything he says everywhere, but this is a helpful resource to start thinking this issue through. You can grab it here, too, if you're a reader.
Part 1 of 2
Wrote a really long reply and had to break it up. Sorry :/
>First off... I'm sorry I came off so upset before.
And I will be more careful going forward on reddit with my posts so as not to offend :) I could have taken more time with the post in question to strip away the implications that I thought you had moral similarities to those groups.
>Morals are personal feelings of what is right or wrong.
This is true in that it describes that individuals hold morals themselves but they can also have absolute truth values depending on whether or not objective morality is a 'thing'. "Murdering humans is wrong" has a truth value of 'T' or 'true' if the Christian God exists. Just like "The holocaust was good" has a truth value of 'F' or 'false' if the Christian God exists. Both of these moral statements have a NULL truth value in a world where morality ebbs and flows with human opinion. The Christian God isn't necessarily the only possible grounds for objective morality but I think he is the most likely, thus me being Christian and not of some other religion.
>I do believe that morals change based on when/where you live. This doesn't bother me.
Maybe you're right and this doesn't bother you, but it bothers me. And I would say 99% of the world at least LIVES as though morals were absolute. I'm sure it would bother you had lived as a Jew in 1930s/40s Europe and been thrown in a concentration camp with your family. There would be little comfort to take in reminding yourself the Nazi morality is 'different' than yours but not objectively 'wrong'. A world where the bodies can be stacked in concentration camps and where child-rape happens and where chemical weapons can be released on villages AND where none of this is objectively 'wrong', is a troubling reality.
>I have no problem and do not judge based on the Christian ideals. I understand it's not wrong in Christian society or they wouldn't be doing it.
In your post, you mention that you are passionate about gay rights. In your morality, I'm assuming that you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and that this is good. Following from this, I'm assuming you believe that religious efforts to keep marriage between heterosexual partners only, to be wrong. Also you say you have no issue with the fact that morality is subjective from one group of individuals to the other. Basically, that morals do not have absolute truth values one way or another since there is no objective standard. From this you can see that allowing homosexuals to marry is neither right nor wrong. You can campaign for their right to marry if you want, that's your choice, but it is not 'right' to do so, anymore than it is 'wrong'.
>Interpretations of the bible have changed drastically over the years.
I'm not arguing that followers of God are always moral in an objective sense. It is pretty obvious from history that this is not the case. What I'm saying is that God's changelessness provides truth values to morality. Jews and Christians may believe their actions are moral but the real truth value of that moral action is determined by God. So if you see a Christian or Jew who acts immorally, that is not proof that objective morality does not exist. It is merely proof that that individual person does not act morally 100% of the time.
>Even if you attempt to take the Bible at face value it's still difficult to understand fully.
Amen. But the worthwhile things are never easy. Jews and Christians believe we are called to 'study' God's word, not to skim it or to read once and put down. There's a lot of depth and nuance to it, along with contextual and historical factors that need to be taken into account. It's true that different interpretations arise, but most are in full agreement about the fundamental teachings of scripture, the most important being who Christ was (God incarnate, come to earth) and what he did for us (freed us from slavery to sin, immorality, and death).
I'm sure, if you've read part or all of the Bible before that many of the Old Testament sections offended your sense of morality. Old Testament morality is not an easy subject and can often be a class or two of its own in a seminary or religion program. There are few key things to keep in mind when reading the Old Testament
If God himself does something you perceive to be immoral, remember to analyze the passage based on the unique circumstances surrounding moral decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent being. Also remember that death in the physical temporal world is one thing, and eternity after judgement at the end of the world is another.
For a much better exposition of Old Testament ethics (while still being at the popular level) I highly recommend the following book by Paul Copan who is a Biblical ethicist: Is God a Moral Monster?
>And yet if they removed every written record of this objective morality and killed off every person with a memory of it... what?
As a Christian, I have faith that God has a vested interest in preventing this reality from happening. But let's say that it did. In that case, the existence of the Bible shows me that God desires humans to be aware of his plans and intentions so he would speak to humanity again as he did in the Bible. Perhaps the stories would be different and the books would be different, but the same moral and loving God would shine through all the same. If God is real, then his ultimate plans for the universe cannot be thwarted by ours.
>Would everyone go to hell?
I think the Bible is clear that, at final judgement, God will not hold anyone accountable for what they didn't know. If a little girl is raped by her Bible-thumping religious father, was she actually shown the real Jesus? No. God would expect her to be angry at religion and would provide a way for her that is fair. The Bible is crystal that God is completely just and aware of every secret thought and deed. We don't have to worry about him being fair.
> I actually attempted to commit suicide a month ago.
If you're being sincere, please talk to someone about this. Your school probably has a psychologist on staff that would love to talk to you. There is nothing wrong with you, every healthy human ought to at least once in a while, and it sounds like you could use someone flesh and blood to talk to right now.
Also, congratulations, you're doing college right. I've a friend that brags that he went into college and left college believing the same things. I want to say to him, "Really? You're glad that your perspective didn't change from going through college?" This is the time when you get to realize that the world is bigger than the bubble you were brought up in.
Also, realize that the Christian faith still has room for you. All your questions are totally legitimate. People have asked them before and they don't have to lead to a loss of faith; although your faith may look different in the end. You really ought to explore the spectrum of answers available to these questions. Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide might be a good place to start. It's written by C.S. Cowles, Daniel L. Gard, Eugene Merrill, and Tremper Longman III. They each provide their own perspective on God and the actions of the Hebrew people against the Canaanites within the biblical narrative. Their answers include everything from "God didn't actually command it" to "God commanded it, and here's why it was okay". I'd also suggest Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time as a good primer on taking the Bible "seriously but not literally" and how to deal with stories like Genesis' flood narrative.
There's a book on the subject: Is God A Moral Monster?
>the claims of christianity are quite extraordinary, and thereby requires extraordinary evidence or argumentation; I am sure that if any of these people had come up with a truly extraordinary argument I would have heard about it. I must conclude they have not.
My earlier point, when I mentioned both classical and contemporary philosophers/theologians, was to show you that christendom had already produced rigorous and rational reasons for the intellectual viability of the christian faith. From the fact that you haven't heard about these writings it does not necessarily follow that they are not compelling or true, or further, that they do not exist. Therefore, your deduction is invalid on this point.
>This in contrast with my limited experience with theology...I have examined the ideas and found them to be extremely wanting in terms of logic and evidence.
You seem to vacillate on whether you are actually familiar with christian thought. You seem to say that you have limited experience with it, and then claim that you find their defences to be illogical and wanting. Seeing as how you also claimed that you hadn't come across 'extraordinary' (i'll construe this as compelling) arguments for christianity, I can safely assume you aren't familiar with rigorous christian thought. This also means that the pool of information from which you deduce your conclusions is insuficient. I'll provide some links to some material to further your knowledge of the christian faith.
>Any open-minded child can see it, and it takes an adult mind to come up with the kind of contortions that pass for a defense of those ideas.
When it comes to questions that are religious or philosophical in nature, the answers are hardly simple. Any subject matter becomes increasingly sophisticated the more you develop it, and the same is with religion and philosophy. To expect otherwise is unfair at the least, and irrational at worst.
Per your request of your wishing me to delineate the founding principles of christianity, I will admit that I neither have the talent or the time to do them justice in this kind of setting. It should suffice that I affirm the nicean creed. As per your list, this should get you started:
God 1 and 2,
the Trinity,
Omniscience 1 and 2.
I'll construe your question of God and regret to the question on whether God can change. If that's fair, then these links may help.
Your question on how the OT and NT harmonize may come because you see the seemingly moral infractions that God causes in the OT versus the seemingly squishy and loving God in the NT. If this is the case, then maybe these links will help some.
For your question on the atonement, this may help.
The wikipedia article on original sin is pretty good, so read that for more info.
Your question on why the theist God is more plausible than other gods that humanity has come up with should become self-evident if you go through the material I have linked here.
>My basic argument will be this: it is possible to waste many words on these topics, but no essay can compete with the idea that it is simply made-up nonsense in terms of parsimony and consistency. Therefore, for anyone who values reason, that should be the default position.
Your position here is one that I find most unhelpful in this exchange. Unless you provide reasons or material on why christianity is "simply made-up nonsense", then your saying that "no essay (which I'll interpret as argumentation) can compete with [your] idea" actually boils down to circular argumentation. You really come across as saying that christianity is silly because it's obviously silly. That kind of assertion (not deduction) doesn't hold water; you have to provide reasons for why that should be the case. If you say that Occam's Razor is an intrinsic defeater for christianity, then you have to show me just how it defeats it. If you say christianity is illogical, then you have to show me how. Once you tell me how you came to those conclusion, I can understand where you're coming from and we can share/learn from one another.
I've given you stuff that I went through when learning about my faith so I've linked it to you. You may find it frustrating that I sent you material for you to go through yourself instead of my just typing it out. I did this because I don't think you've exposed yourself to enough material on christianity to substantiate the claims you make here. If you're going to hold your views, that's cool, but if you want to make huge claims like christianity is "baloney" or "illogical," then you have to be familiar with what you're going up against. Until you familiarize yourself with the material, I doubt our exchange would be useful; at least not until you are more forthcoming in telling me what you believe, why you believe it, and (for the purposes of this conversation) why you think (in detail) that christianity is baloney and illogical.
Here is some light reading for you.
You may wish to start with his prior book .
I have read Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus and it is fascinating. I have not finished Plato and The Hebrew Bible yet.
He is the MASTER, I mean it, of the short story. I would say his short stories are much better than his novels. I'm about halfway through his entire short story collection right now ([The Finca Vigia Edition] (http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323)) and I love it so much. With his short, simple, to the point language it's quite obvious he would do his best work in a shorter format, in my opinion. I have only read two of his books, those being "The Sun Also Rises" and "The Old Man and the Sea", both were phenomenal and I feel like his terse prose brought the novel and especially the short story to new heights.
(I'm not Mjdillaha.)
I've recently enjoyed reading Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan. It doesn't go over the the tabernacle dimensions, but it does talk quite a bit about the context and interpretation of the Old Testament laws. Although today we look back on ancient Near East laws today and find them all unsuitable for our time, the Mosaic law was actually in many cases a major improvement over contemporary laws in surrounding cultures, even with respect to the treatment of women and slaves (two topics that people love to bring up when talking about the "injustice" of the Old Testament God).
Copan's book is a quick read, and every chapter has a reading list if you want to dive deeper into any of the topics.
#3 but with #1
>John 5:39,46 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me... For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me."
>
>Luke 24:44 "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
I recommend looking at works by Estelle and Fesko for some good Christological expositions of certain OT sections. I've heard Jesus on Every Page is a good starter, but I haven't picked it up myself.
I recently read Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah by Estelle. The way he reveals Christ in that book is stunning.
I've suggested this elsewhere before, but check out The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture by Yoram Hazony. He argues that the Bible (at least, the Hebrew Bible) is already a philosophical text. We just tend not to recognize it because of an artificial Western distinction between philosophy (which begins with the Greeks, even though Plato and Aristotle have plenty of 'religious' content) and religion (which begins with the Jews, event though there's plenty of 'philosophical' content in Judaism generally and the Bible specifically).
You may want to read a couple books about the bible, too. I like to, at least.
Both of those are about larger structures and patterns that are recurring in scripture.
Something more lighthearted might be I dare you not to bore me with the bible by Heiser
A House for My Name walks through the Old Testament, showing Christ, and it includes review questions. Very solid and deep.
Currently reading and enjoying Margaret Barker’s The Great Angel .
It's almost as if the word "yom" translates to a "period of time" rather than a strictly 24 hour day...
There have been books written about how the creation narrative makes peculiar sense given what science has told us about the pattern of evolved life on earth...
A few book suggestions you might not get elsewhere:
The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price — a fresh translation of the New Testament plus twenty-seven other early Christian documents and apocrypha.
Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman — a more popular-level discussion of early Christian texts (but does not include the texts themselves).
The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought — seems comprehensive, but I haven't read it yet. It's rather expensive.
One Biblical scholar and author who is very popular among Mormons (though she is not one) is Margaret Barker. Her focus is on the influence of temple theology and Jewish polytheism in the formation of Christianity. Her books include The Great Angel and The Great High Priest. They are scholarly reading and might be difficult for the casual reader to follow.
If you listen to podcasts, Robert Price ("the Bible Geek") and Mark Goodacre both have popular podcasts on the New Testament and early Christianity. The former was a Jesus Seminar member and has some fairly radical views; the latter is a more conservative evangelical.
I just read The Origins of Yahwism, which was excellent if you can find it in an academic library.
(On Amazon here. Slightly expensive. And the cover looks right there, but the description is in German and the copy I was reading is fully translated into English? I assume it's the same book, but you'd want to be sure before buying it.)
While some people argue he could have originated in the north, there is a great deal of research going on which suggests a southern origin for YHWH.
There's negative evidence, like the total lack of names with YHWH in them recorded until the monarchic period and the total lack of place names named after YHWH. And there's positive evidence, like the "the divine march" texts in Judges 5:4-5/Psalm 68:8-9 describing him as popularly recognized as "marching" north. (Also Habakkuk 3 and Deuteronomy 33.) They go into detailed analysis of this and other textual evidence.
There's a great lot of essays on iconographic evidence which are a bit dense for me to try and get in to. (Including some Egyptian inscriptions and inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud.)
The book goes into loads of detail.
My friend picked up some stuff of mine from his PO Box across the border. Managed to get a pair of Killshots since they don't ship to Canada/can't get in-store shipping here. Also got two books as well.
"An Exorcist Tells His Story" - Fr. Gabriele Amorth
"The Complete Short Stories" - Hemingway
Since I have no idea what kind of books you like I made a short little list of books I generally recommend to people for any reason. All linked to amazon so look for a review or synopsis there.
Let the Great World Spin
The Great War for Civilization
The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway
Oil!
The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde
Theodore Rex
Lincoln:A Novel
Get some absinthe and crack open a copy of Hemingway's short stories.
For sure. Margaret Barker, for one, argues that the divine counsil with a high god and lesser gods gets transformed into God and the angels. Some not-really-monotheistic traditions in first century Judaism, in her argument, set the stage for Jesus worship as a Great Angel, a position that was roughly equivalent to what had been Yhwh's position in the divine counsil.
Let's see, what does an Orthodontist do? Jack Cuozzo made braces for children. In order to make proper braces, you have to know what the skull is going to look like in the next few decades so the teeth don't get crowded.
Now who is more of an expert on skull formation and growth? Someone who has to predict the shape of skulls over long periods of time? Or an anthropologist who studies culture?
I like how you said his research hasn't stood up to scrutiny but haven't provided any actual dissent. Just asserting the opposite of what the ACTUAL "actual experts" say is not an argument.
It's obvious YOU don't understand how science works. Yes, legends from all over the world of people actually living to be 1000 combined with physical evidence that people lived to be 1000 does mean that people actually lived to be 1000.
Anyway, here's a book by Dr. Walt Brown who came up with the Hydroplate Theory for the Global Flood. He's had an open offer to debate any scientist with proper credentials on this subject but absolutely no one will take him up on it.
https://www.amazon.com/Tradition-Kept-Literature-Robert-Anderson/dp/0801045487
https://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Introduction-History-Culture-Samaritans/dp/0801045479
Do not twist scripture, which says that El Elyon gave Israel to his angelic son or "god" as Yahweh's inheritance or portion. "The sons of Adam are not angels/gods. They are the nationless people who needed to be assigned nations with angelic overseers. He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God [angels/angelic council]; While _the Lord's own portion was Jacob - HIs hereditary share was Israel". Just as Adam's descendents are portioned nations, so too does the Most High portion a nation, Israel, to the Lord.
Do not twist scripture, which describes Yahweh as striding "in the midst of the gods" as do the Psalms.
Please familiarize yourself with Yahweh as Israel's Great Angel:
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israels-Second/dp/0664253954/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518406554&sr=1-4&keywords=margaret+barker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUkhWBKCuXc
This is one of my passions, so get ready.
Let's play a game; you pick any passage in 1 Samuel, and I will tell you how it is about Christ.
There are many more ways that the OT is about Jesus than just "messianic" and "allegory." But, I do want to caveat - verses and chapters, though helpful, are largely arbitrary units. I would nuance this to say that every "passage" is about Jesus - every independent literary unit. So no Jesus is not in every word, or every verse, or sometimes not even in every chapter, but he is what every passage is ultimately about.
If you haven't studied them, I would encourage you to consider a few NT passages - how Jesus considers the theme of the OT:
John 5:39-40: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."
Luke 24:25-17: "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Or, maybe more on the nose, take a look at how the NT interprets OT passages that aren't "messianic."
Like Matthew 2:13-15, quoting Hosea 11:1 - in context clearly about Israel and not Jesus. But Matthew seems to think it is! If you read and wrestle with this article, you'll have a great start to understanding how the NT interprets the OT.
Following up on Matthew 2, John 12's use of Isaiah 6, or 1 Corinthians 10's use of much of the Exodus narrative - both use OT passages that are not evidently about Christ but prove to be.
If you're curious, I recommend two books: David Murray's "Jesus on Every Page" is a popular level book, and Sidney Greidanus' "Preaching Christ from the Old Testament" is more academic and will give a christocentric method for interpreting the OT.
The two best books on this subject, IMO, are:
The Great Partnership: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Partnership-Science-Religion/dp/0805243011/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0F6V6MAAKJEZ2BNHBKFA. This speaks on a more philosophical level how science and Torah complement each other.
The Challenge of Creation: http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Creation-Encounter-Cosmology-Evolution/dp/9652295949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395243512&sr=1-1. This goes through a myriad of traditional Torah sources to show that Torah-observant Jews have nothing to fear from science.
From the comments I've read here so far, I think people don't yet understand the problem before coming up with a solution.
Justifying God killing someone isn't a problem, it's just that some don't like the answer. God kills everybody, some through fire and brimstone and others through cancer. Death is a part of (our current) life. The problem isn't how we justify God in these actions, the problem is why does God command humans to commit these actions in the OT? How can God tell us to love our neighbors one day then go to war the next?
There are two solutions that I know of:
Covenant theology points out that the Jews were part of a direct covenant with God where they could serve as his direct agents. In return for their devotion, they got special privilege over other nations. But they still had to be moral towards each other and towards any foreigners who followed God's ways. (There's actually a great deal of Jewish commentaries on this stuff, which I'm not familiar with, but you may want to pop into /r/judaism and ask them about it). Jesus however established a new covenant in which there is "no longer greek or jew, man or woman, slave or free." This covenant with all mankind means that we don't have the right to just harm anybody; the prerogative to give and take life away remains solely with God.
The progressive revelation interpretation basically says that early Jewish views about God were not correct, that they originally conceived of Yahweh as a war god who supported them in their battles and only later through the prophets and Christ did we learn more about the true nature of God.
There's a book on this stuff, by the way, Is God a Moral Monster. There are also some links in the FAQ about OT violence.
So you admit (after, what's it been, 7 opportunities) you have no evidence for your all-encompassing, foundational assertion then?
You'd be smart to investigate this, and see how you not only have no evidence for what you are saying, but that pure naturalism actually contradicts all basis for reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
And it would be alright to criticize WLC, if, you know, Hume's Law didn't exist. But since it does, you can't assert any sort of moral superiority - heck, morality even - without it being a completely arbitrary assertion on your part. In fact, the only reason you think the murder of children is wrong is because you've been profoundly influenced by Christian thought and western society. If you grew up in a place where it was acceptable, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
(Whether or not events like these even happened is a topic we haven't bothered to touch upon. WLC has spoken, I believe, along the lines of Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? and questioned the record since there isn't much evidence for these conquests, and their narrative similarity to other, pagan conquest narratives).
As for me, I believe science works because God created an ordered universe that finds God as its first cause. We expect to find natural laws because we believe in a law giver. This is what the first scientists believed as well (think Newton, etc). http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319304844&sr=8-3
Definitely read his short stories. I've got this compilation, and I love it.
My understanding of the Old Testament is that the nation of Israel had to be essentially kept perfect in a fallen world, by any means necessary. Hence the use of the death penalty for breaking the Law, and completely wiping out the people who they conquered in war. Any time the Israelites failed to wipe out a nation, they would end up absorbing that nation's customs and worshiping their gods, and would fall away from God.
Because of our sin and rejection of God, no one is deserving of life. Jesus' sacrifice is what redeems us to Him.
EDIT: Right after posting this comment, I came across this book. I thought I'd share it in case it is more than coincidence. There are surely countless more writings on the topic, and I highly recommend that you investigate your questions fully.
For collections of essays describing both the ancient Israelite thinking and reception history there is the Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and Princeton U. Press' The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion. Both have excellent material.
Yoram Hazony's book also seems to be right up your alley!
>Exhibit A: The Flood
>Exhibit B: The Amalekites
>Satan makes good points.
I would primarily direct you to this book Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan as it uses respected scholarly information to help explain the appearance of a wicked Old Testament God.
As for the flood, supposing that God is real and authoritative, doesn't he have the responsibility to be just? Sin requires punishment, so God as the righteous judge enacts that punishment when he deems fit. Every instance of judgment (including the flood) is preceded by many attempts by God to get people turn back from evil and trust in him.
>Inasmuch as "you have the 'free will' to prostrate yourself before God (the architect of exhibits A and B above) or be punished" goes, I suppose.
Hell is commonly described as punishment but it is simply God giving us exactly what we want, total separation from him.
Thank you for the reference. I’ll check her book out.
Loved her program on Netflix.
https://www.amazon.com/King-Manasseh-Child-Sacrifice-Alttestamentliche/dp/3110179946
> And yet the Bible describes God condoning and even commanding immoral behavior.
By whose standard?
> That's not justice. You condemn someone for their actions, not their circumstance of birth.
We are born with a sinful corrupt nature. We are condemned for our sinful actions. Sin requires a penalty. That penalty is death.
> You claim God didn't condone slavery but you are completely incorrect. (That is, if you believe the Bible is directly inspired by God and isn't flawed in any way.) There are more verses in the Bible condoning slavery than there are condemning homosexuality.
The point I was trying to make was that God did not approve of or command that slavery be practiced. That was the work of fallen man. However, God laid the groundwork for reversing the practice of slavery through regulation and changing the hearts of man. However, slavery still continues due to rebellious man, not God.
Perhaps this link could help explain my position better.
> There are more verses in the Bible condoning slavery than there are condemning homosexuality.
Thats debatable.... There are verses that do condemn slavery. There’s not one that affirms the practice of homosexual lifestyles.
> So you don't believe atheists are going to hell?
Yes. But they are not specifically going to Hell for not believing in Christ. Even the demons believe in and acknowledge Christ. Rather they are going to Hell as a penalty for sin in breaking Gods law. Their not believing in and following Christ is simply their choice in foolishly rejecting the only means of redemption for the penalty of their sins.
This may sound like semantics, but the confusion lies in your original statement: "A loving God would never commit someone to an eternity of torture just for not believing in Him”. And indeed, the statement is only half-wrong. So I will give you credit there.
Originally, we were condemned to Hell for disobeying and rejecting God. We were inherently separated from God due to our sinful nature. Because God is a holy and just God, He cannot accept or be in the presence of sin. And due to our sinful natures, it is in our nature to reject and rebel against God. This is what condemns us from the start.
But Christ went to the cross as payment for our sins. He came, lived a sinless and perfect life - for the purpose of making the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Our sins were imputed on the perfectly innocent and sinless Christ, so that His righteousness could be imputed upon us.
He does not commit us to eternal damnation for not believing in Christ per se, but rather for rejecting Him and instead leading a life of unrepentant sin.
> There are so many it would be impossible to list here. But there is a website that lists a lot of them that, if you don't mind, I'll use to save myself some time. I realize it's extremely biased however the scriptures quoted are accurate.
"Extremely biased" is an understatement. Just a cursory glance at it betrays the authors lack of experience in understanding and contextualizing the Scriptures. He/she tends to take verses out of historical and scriptural context in order to create for him/herself a false sense of abundant low-hanging fruit in which to work with, oftentimes going to utterly ridiculous heights to do so. This to me betrays an agenda based on hatred and pride, rather than seeking to find genuine truth.
But I will also agree that there are some events told in the Bible that can be difficult to rationalize or accept. To say otherwise would be foolish. One good book amongst many (not the best, not the worst) would be Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. It is inexpensive and worth a look.
> I appreciate that you acknowledged it. I'm not taking any offense. However, these are topics I've thought long and hard about and researched endlessly already.
For instance?
>I've yet to come across any explanation that makes sense and allows for God to be a morally good being, except not taking the Bible literally.
Morally good, based on what (or whose) standard?
> I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours doing that already. I'm not ignorant of Christianity, in fact, I used to be a Christian. I'm also not an anti-theist and have expressed my desire to believe in God again.
I can appreciate that. In fact, I can readily state that I was probably in your same boat, in what feels like not so long ago. However, ‘head knowledge’ will only take you so far. But one must also search their heart for signs of self-centered pride and ego. If there is one thing I have learned is, the Bible is very offensive to man in the sense that it teaches doctrines and wisdom that very much go against mans nature and desires. And to me, overcoming that was the toughest hurdle. But in doing so, it opened up new perspectives for me to explore.
I can’t answer 'There are so many it would be impossible to list here’ kinds of objections. But if you wish to discuss specific points civilly, either here or through PM, I would be more than glad to entertain that. Otherwise, good luck in your pursuits!
Read Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? for more info on all these Old Testament laws and traditions. Context is key! Can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372794710&sr=8-1&keywords=is+god+a+moral+monster
Not currently YEC, but was, and an Orthodox guy that'll probably be a saint was definitely one. I refer to Seraphim Rose. I believe his main argument was that there was evidence the church fathers believed in a literal YEC, and we should follow their lead. He wrote a book about it. As you can see it is quite expensive, but I suppose you can read reviews/sum ups to get the gist.
My response would be that the Fathers probably also believed in a geocentric model and a flat earth, and one of them seemed to believe the Phoenix was an actual bird, so I wouldn't limit my understanding of the world according to the letter of the fathers. Perhaps he'd reply that they presented it in such a way that it was vital to their faith/theology. Unfortunately I've heard (here) that a lot of Seraphim's followers basically are saying the same things the protestants have been saying for however many years YEC has been a thing.
So, in conclusion, there are some Orthodox believers that are YEC. Some of them have a unique take on it by appealing to the early fathers, but some just go the tired old protestant route. Since I'm not YEC I don't buy the father thing either, but if you're YEC you might want to check out what the Orthodox who happened to be YEC have to say.
Someone has a theory that answers questions of origin, and is testable.
hint: there is no common ancestor
Yes, but the orthodox teaching of creation isn't bared out in what is passed off as creationism.
Saraphim Rose wrote a book which outlines it
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026
His short stories are the best place to start. There's a bunch of collections, some better than others, but the Finca Vigia Edition is definitive collection: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334338570&sr=1-1
It contains the best of his early stuff, plus a few stories that came after his first collection and a few unpublished in his lifetime.
You might want to check this out
> People say the story of Cain and Abel is about hatred between brothers. But Cain and Abel aren’t just any brothers. They stand for conflicting ways of life—the life of the farmer vs. that of the shepherd. Abel is just the first in a line of biblical heroes (including Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David, and more) whom choose the life of the shepherd and what it represents and so win God’s love.
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Hebrew-Scripture-Yoram-Hazony/dp/0521176670
Ok that was longer than a few moments, but here we go!
Well, for one thing, we have to understand that there is a vast cultural rift between 2012 America/Canada/Europe/whatever and the 1500ish BC Middle East.
Some of Old Testament regulations regarding slavery, marriage, etc. may seem harsh to us, but compared to the brutal cultural norms of that era, they were actually quite liberating. For the Bible to say that women, children, slaves, and foreigners had any rights at all was a revolutionary idea.
Still, the Old Testament commandments were not necessarily intended to illustrate God's vision of a perfect society.
Rather, they were intended to restrict evil as much as was reasonably possible within a somewhat barbaric culture (though they might say the same of our culture in many ways!), and ultimately to show them that their own attempt to perfectly follow every part of the law was hopeless- that as lawbreakers they needed a righteousness that went beyond mere behavior modification. That's where Jesus comes in.
Here is a link multiple links to a talk by Dr. John Dickson (PhD in Ancient History) that touches on a lot of your concerns (specifically violence in the Old Testament):
Part 1 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2531
Part 2 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2532
Part 3 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2533
Part 4 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2534
And here is a gigantic unorganized pile of some other somewhat relevant links. I can't absolutely vouch for everything, but they should be generally helpful.
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/30/what-about-genocide-in-the-old-testament/
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/did-god-condone-slavery.html
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/what-are-christians-to-do-with-old-testament-law/
http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin
http://carm.org/slavery
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/you-may-buy-slaves
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/02/was-the-mosaic-law-meant-to-be-permanent/
http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/13/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-1/
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son
http://carm.org/questions/about-bible
http://carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask
http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy
http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions
Also, here are a couple of books you might be interested in. I have not personally read them, but I've heard good things.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072751?tag=apture-20
I hope that helps! Thanks for your honest and respectful questions. :)
>You cannot separate the old and new testament as the word of God. If you believe one, you believe the other, and one is so full of death, destruction, anger, hate, and just plain vile stories that it simply cannot be divinely inspired.
I agree with you in that they are the exact same God. The God of the new testament and the God of the old testament, so if you believe in one, you believe in the other because they are one in the same. I'm not going to try to explain it, because it's such a broad topic, and I don't feel I have a good enough command of the english language to get my point across, but I can believe the actions of God in the old testament can be fairly easily rectified. This book helped to reconcile my beliefs when I needed answers about the very same topic. And after a quick google search, I found this a youtube video of a radio interview with Paul Copan, the author of that book.
As far as being good without God, from a worldy view, this is definitely possible, but not so much from a Christian view. There is nothing good in me. On my own, I am capable of no good need. I am human, I am corrupt, and evil by nature. God is the only thing in me that is good, and every time I complete a good action, it is solely because of Him. In a secular sense, you can be good without God, because even though you may not believe in God, you still live in His world. There is still an ultimate moral standard, that everyone agrees upon, yet has no natural explanation. You can most certainly have more 'goodness' than a christian from the perspective of completing more 'good' acts.
I don't believe God stacked the evidence against Himself when he created the universe. There is just as much scientific evidence for biblical creation, as there is for a natural creation. In fact, it's the exact same evidence! The evidence that atheists use to proclaim the nonexistence of God, is used by Theists to proclaim His existence! The same evidence is just interpreted differently by two different groups of people. The problem is, everyone has a world view, so it's impossible to look at the evidence and be completely neutral. If you begin examining the evidence believing one thing, you will most likely draw a conclusion similar to your prior beliefs. A world view is like a colored lens. If you wore green glasses everywhere, you might suspect everything is green. Not because it is, but because the glasses make it seem so. So really the proof in whether or not there is a God, comes down to determining which world view is correct. Fortunately, all world views separate from Christianity conflict themselves somewhere, thus proving they can't be the 'correct' view. Most of them lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't be able to know anything about the universe that we live in, or that day to day actions of anyone without God, are completely unexplainable. This is because Christianity is the only world view that can accurately account for the preconditions of intelligibility, or the conditions that must exist before we can know anything. Atheists cannot account for these conditions, and have to actually rely on the Bible, before they can argue against it. I'm not going to give a super thorough explanation here, but I would suggest looking into Presuppositional apologetics, and the preconditions of intelligibility.
Joseph and his contemporaries were well aware of the similarities to Masonry. Most of them, as I understand it, are related to a few gestures and symbolic matters. The meaning is not at all the same, and the theology involved is (of course) totally different, partly because Masons don't have a theology. We have a bunch of stuff on this here:
The question of "influence" is a difficult one to answer. What do we make of the affinities? Are they direct borrowings? Did Joseph use them as convenient symbols that were ready at hand with which his audience of Saints was already comfortable and familiar (if so, this seems a strange way to commit fraud--using symbols that Joseph had encouraged them to become familiar with, since he strongly encouraged involvement in the Masonic Lodge prior to teaching the full endowment).
Others have seen them as parallel matters--things revealed to Joseph that also had affinities to ancient practices and Masonic ones. Others see a combination effect. I don't think that it really matters--any symbol can be repurposed; they are all the time.
Anyway, I'm not an expert, but see here:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry
People had complaints against Joseph. Some no doubt thought they were legitimate. Others seem to have been naked examples of simple harassment. I don't think you need an "either/or" answer to this. Some people doubtless thought they had a legitimate claim against Joseph, but were also stirred up by Satan. Some acts were clearly diabolic (regardless of whether you believe in Satan). Some may have been completely legit.
There's the Joseph Smith Papers project that handles legal matters--we'll know more as these all get published. But, this is how law works--people with grievances bring suit, the suit takes place, and you see what happens. Joseph was almost always found innocent--which should tell us something. Despite the hostility against him, he generally prevailed in court. Is he the sole exception to "innocent until proven guilty"?
But, I think a definitive answer to this question will probably need to await more data--they're reportedly finding lots more legal documents involving Joseph than we've known about--and he comes out ahead in (almost?) all. For some info by someone involved in the matter, see:
Joseph I. Bentley, "Legal Trials of the Prophet: Joseph Smith's Life in Court" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation) FAIR link (Key source)
See here too:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues
See here:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor
The Expositor itself did not bring about Joseph's death. It could not have--it was a civil, not criminal matter, so at worst he would be liable for a monetary fine, which he repeatedly said he and the city council were willing to pay if they were found guilty. He was released on bail to await the arrival of the "circuit rider" judge. That should have been the end of it, until the judge arrived later.
Joseph ended up in Carthage Jail because a justice of the peace (who was also a minister, and the leader of the Carthage Greys militia) then immediately gave a writ for Joseph's arrest for treason against Illinois. (Joseph had, under the legal powers given him, called out the Nauvoo Legion to defend Nauvoo against possible attack--they attacked no one, but this was said to be treason. After Joseph's death, the Saints were again driven by armed force out of Nauvoo, proving that such things did happen repeatedly--it already had in Missouri.)
This treason charge allowed him to jail Joseph, and then lead the men who murdered him (the Carthage Greys were the ones, remember, who stormed Carthage Jail--200 men or so against 4 prisoners armed with pepperbox pistol and a cane).
So, the Expositor provided the initial pretext and furor, but it isn't the whole story. Once again, there are complexities to any historical tale. Joseph knew that going to Carthage to answer again for the Expositor (which he had done twice already, once before a Mormon and once before a non-LDS judge, and been found not-guilty both times) was going to be trouble.
And, Joseph and the city council's actions with the Expositor were legal under the law of the day. Critics don't usually tell you that. :-)
Here are some more open ended questions that I don't really expect a straight answer to. Just worries/concerns that I come across while reading scriptures.
I think the scriptures give us people as they are, generally, not people as we would like them to be. If they are historical, then this must be the case. The Book of Mormon never glorifies war.
The Old Testament is a bit of a different case--but, we don't believe it inerrant, and clearly a lot of editing has gone on with the OT. So much of the 'praise' of war may well be later editors inserting their own gloss on it. A non-LDS author treats these OT matters in great detail here:
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344139877&sr=8-1&keywords=god+a+moral+monster
But, I like what C.S. Lewis said about such matters:
The two things one must not do are (a) to believe on the strength of Scripture or on any other evidence that God is in any way evil (In Him is no darkness at all) (b) to wipe off the slate any passage which seems to show that He is. Behind the shocking passage be sure there lurks some great truth which you don't understand. If one ever does come to understand it, one sees that it is good and just and gracious in ways we never dreamed of. Till then it must just be left on one side . . . Would not a revelation which contained nothing that you and I did not understand, be for that very reason rather suspect? To a child it would seem a contradiction to say both that his parents made him and God made him, yet we see how both can be true. [Letters of C.S. Lewis, edited by W.H. Lewis, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966), letter of 8 August 1953, 253.]
Since LDS don't believe in perfect scriptures (esp. the Bible, and ESP. the OT, I would say) we would say the same thing in even stronger terms.
At FAIR, we even do joke questions. You see, the Wiki Knows All:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Nephi%27s_killing_of_Laban/Blood_loss_from_decapitation
I am also posting this as an apologetic resource for you to use.
Why Christianity?
https://youtu.be/nWY-6xBA0Pk
Why suffering?
https://youtu.be/v6Gl4ao8IzA?t=9m6s
Evolution? Genesis?
Part 1
https://youtu.be/qMU1soRrtJk?t=26
Part 2
https://youtu.be/HZrxogY9Pnc?t=26
Part 3:
https://youtu.be/G7HQzhi8UPM?t=26
Part 4:
https://youtu.be/_3R0bh9LtSc?t=26
Part 5:
https://youtu.be/KJ3IgGYf29k?t=26
Part 6:
https://youtu.be/KCxWhKe1AMg?t=26
Part 7:
https://youtu.be/AyQY5Z3GeG4?t=26
Part 8:
https://youtu.be/eOwA9L0IY3I?t=26
Did Jesus exist?
https://youtu.be/A6uWSoxG_Fs
Jesus claimed to be God?
https://youtu.be/gT2TN6kA5kY
Trinity?
https://youtu.be/LoTSqXY5uhc
The good news?
https://youtu.be/HSNayo631a0
Homosexuality?
• A sin to exist?
https://youtu.be/COIThVReiIo
• A call to love?
https://youtu.be/nPYRXop7aPA?t=9s
Hell?
https://youtu.be/dz2EaQMBS3Y
All You Want to Know About Hell: Three Christian Views of God's Final Solution to the Problem of Sin
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EQE3FJE/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_.o7HCb3HS6NG3
Never heard of Jesus?
Part 1
https://youtu.be/RvyzODL4B9U
Part 2
https://youtu.be/ufROkQF8rvg
Where did God come from?
https://youtu.be/RVzeojdXbpQ?t=9s
You might also enjoy these reads below,
Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MQFWQHD/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_QfzpCbWNBDNS2
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LUJDNE/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_QizpCbDR7WP0G
Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYP99J3/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_UoApCbAY8N4YN
Jesus Among Secular Gods: The Countercultural Claims of Christ
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01F1UD66I/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_u6wsCbDS1XXHR
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EPYPY4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3WypCbW728FHK
I can really recommend two collections;
Furthermore, if you want to add a little style to your bookshelf, buy one of these. they are basically all great reads!
I'd recommend that you take time to investigate a few resources. These objections have been addressed, and there are very good reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is indeed moral.
I take issue with your concept that God created Hell. Although this sounds like semantics, I think it is important to note that God didn't create Hell, but rather, he created the opportunity for people to go to Hell by creating free creatures. Read Jerry Walls's article about Hell in this book. Also, I would recommend reading C. S. Lewis's chapter about Hell in The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce to understand the nature of Hell.
As for the alleged evils of God in the Old Testament, I recommend Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster?
Lastly, the statement "I find it hard to believe your God is morally good" is one of the most ironic statements I have ever read. Morality needs God to exist. Without a higher being, how can there be a higher standard? Read the first part of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a look at the Moral Argument for God's existence.
We have pretty similar tastes.
I'd start by suggesting a few more of Orwell's - Down and Out, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Homage to Catalonia.
Hemingway - There is another thread about him today, but I say go with the short stories to start. This collection is superb.
I got into Russian lit right around the time I finished all the books you mentioned. Crime and Punishment or some of Dostoevsky's many short stories could be a gateway into a whole new literature for you.
Some contemporary authors that are excellent - Margaret Atwood (start with The Handmaid's Tale), Salman Rushdie (writes incredibly vibrant and creative prose), Don Lee (I loved both books I've read from this newish author), Joyce Carol Oates (prolific and profound), Alan Lightman, Umberto Eco, Junot Diaz.
Great non-fiction - Read the rest of Jared Diamond's stuff, it's all great. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam by Tuchmann, a classic of how bad decisions led to downfalls in civilization. A Sideways Look at Time, a mildly rambly polemic on the politics of time in modern culture. The Closing of the Western Mind, a survey on how Christianity came to dominate the west. Power Faith and Fantasy about America's history of mucking about in the middle east. A Natural History of the Senses by Diane Ackerman, who write beautifully about the natural world, and is also a solid poetess (if you're into that). And I'm sure someone is going to mention Bryson. He's good too.
I have been struggling with the same exact things...My eyes were opened by this article about Pauls perception of the Old Testament God. This is also a very common struggle amongst many Christians.
http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/01/way-peace-and-grace
Also, a really good recent book is out called "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751
Both of these are definitely worth reading.
There is scientific evidence that what I am saying is true. It's Historical in nature (and History is a science right?)
Christianity has been the seedbed for every Scientific revolution, Isaac Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, all believed in the Christian God and therefore found justification for their scientific pursuits in that belief.
Also, the kind of free Government we enjoy in western Nations was born after the Reformation under the watchful eyes of the Baptists, Anabaptists and the Puritans.
The ethic behind these movements was completely Christian, and religious freedom could only have been born under Christianity.
If you want to talk about the Old Testament and its laws, a simple way of seeing it is that Jesus fulfilled the law's demands as our the federal head of God's people. He purchased his children and redeemed them and so the Mosaic law now stands as a testimony to God's graceful forgiveness.
There's a whole lot written on the subject. If you like you can read this book to clarify some things for you. You can get a paperback or kindle version.
Have you done any online research into these verses? It might be worthwhile to seek out a theologian's view before making any snap judgements. Often we do not see the cultural context, nor do we understand the language. An excellent example of this is the laws on "slavery", which some use to claim the Bible endorses slavery as it was in the antebellum south. This is false, because what is called slavery in the OT is entirely different than what happened in more modern times. This is an excellent explanation if you are interested: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
A book I am reading through now that may be useful to you:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EPYPY4/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
As for Lev. 26, it came true later on when the Israelites began to worship Canaanite gods, which involved child sacrifice. God then withdrew his protection and Israel was under siege from the Babylonians. The Israelites ate their own children rather than ask God for forgiveness and turn from their false gods.
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man isn't the Bible...
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026
I like the Fine Tuning Argument which surmises that the universe is perfectly suited for the creation of life. The book The Genesis Question is a good look at this, but I do think he over-reaches on some points.
So you're going to create this big fuckoff universe, and time is of no real value to you, since you know, you're outside of it and all. 14 billion years or 1 day, who cares.
Then there's a beautiful world out there you so all (Theistic Evolution/Progressive Creationism/Gap Theory) a conscious, spiritual, soulful being into existence to like, totally party with his naked wife in it.
Then this one dude gets all jealous and shit, spits a bunch off bullshit, and your homeboy you created is too much of a coward to tell him to GTFO. So now your whole world is fallen. What to do?
This begins the narrative at Genesis 4.
> It's all bronze - age myths copied from other bronze - age
The New Testament was written well after the Bronze Age. It is mid-antiquity.
> a frankly terrible plotline about a deity who's worse than Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler combined
Read Is God a Moral Monster?. While I can't endorse all of the hermeneutics employed by the author, I can definitely say two things:
(1) It's difficult to blame God for using violence when violence is sometimes just. In fact, pacifism is evil because it's completely unjust.
(2) Most of the Old Testament is poetry and therefore has very little violence.
> I'm not going to accept anything you can tell me about it until you prove to me that the entire document is literally true and faithfully depicts events. Which you can't.
No historian accepts the admissibility of documentation under that criterion. I can show you that much of the Bible is corroborated by external sources and is reliable history, but I can't prove every. single. statement by means of external sources, especially given that much of the Bible concerns Israeli politics, which doesn't have much interest among other nations that would have survived for 3000+ years.
Creationist textbook
counter points here