Is the Old Testament......"mean?"

[a_Anita]

Actually, I believe that the phrase is “to uncover (someone’s) nakedness” and in Leviticus, it’s used as a euphemism to describe immoral/illegal sexual intercourse.

Here is a web-page from United Kingdom about different ways of “de-coding” the word “nakedness” used in the Bible:

ukapologetics.net/canaan.html

It’s a topic where the experts seem to disagree…

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Good example! I’ll be using that.

You might want to look into the OT using the series Our Father’s Plan with Jeff Cavins & Scott Hahn. I really got a lot of out it…

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622

I already read “A Father who Keeps His Promises” by Scott Hahn, which I believe was the basis for the series, correct?

I’ve also facilitaed Jeff’s Bible Study here in my parish.

But anyway, Thank You!

 

[minion]

Wow…thanks for the answers everyone. And for the extra Bible resources. I think I will need join a Bible study group someday, so I don’t needlessly pepper CAF board with questions.

Some of the answers do conflict, though Some follow-up questions (still a little bit in kindergartner mode):

1. So the Tree of Good & Evil, is essentially an allegory for our original parent’s decision to sin, correct? However…but if even they chose to sin despite not possessing original sin, what will make us and the saints any different after Christ’s second coming? Won’t the decision to sin still be available?
2. So if the serpent (Satan) was allowed to tempt us, would it be fair to say the Satan is the source of original sin? So essentially, the fall of the angels has repercussions on the fall of mankind, and we’re not really responsible, but a level of a creatures higher than us?
3. How would Cain know murder was wrong if he was the first one who’s done it? Wouldn’t the fact that Abel was killing animals and offering them to God give Cain the idea that killing was acceptable?
4. So…was the Flood a literal event? I believe there are various myths around the world that seemed to confirm the Flood story.
5. When God sees Cain’s anger, and asks “what’s wrong?”, with God being omnipotent…couldn’t God have given him some advice to calm down? Maybe it just wasn’t included in the Bible? Or is Cain just another allegory of the children of Adam and Eve beginning to murder out of jealousy?
6. Is Adam and Eve in hell? Their actions pretty much condemned millions of sinners’ souls to hell. Would it be fair to say God may have been easier on sinners back then due to mankind’s infancy?
7. Why did God talk more directly with Adam and Eve, but is relatively silent now? (no, I’m not an atheist )

Hahn and his partner, in the explanation to the Study-bible, seem to see this event as incest with the mother. Canaan was then the fruit of a an unholy union between a son and a mother.

Um…I’m not sure I agree with Hahn’s interpretation. Is it the Catholic position? Or does the Catholic Church give wiggle room to the laity for these interpretations?

1. Did Jesus’s new covenant cancel God’s former desire for animal sacrifice?
2. Not in OT, but is Lilith real?
3. ) How do I know what I’m being taught is the “official” interpretation of the Catholic Church? Is there a Catholic book or resource that specifically interprets what each individual verse means, and the cited interpreter? (Bishop, priest, theologian, etc)

peace

 

[Gorgias]

so I don’t needlessly pepper CAF board with questions.

Nah… you’re not “needlessly peppering” anyone. It just seems that a good Bible study will be able to address your needs more thoroughly and successfully…!

1. So the Tree of Good & Evil, is essentially an allegory for our original parent’s decision to sin, correct?

Some might call it ‘allegory’, while others are free to understand it literally. What’s important – from a Catholic perspective – to remember is that everything that God created was ‘good’, and the creation of humans was ‘very good’, and yet, since we have free will, humans chose sin. If you really want to look deeply into the story, then keep in mind that humans chose “the knowledge of good and evil”, not “good and evil”; in other words, they chose to make decisions of what was good and bad instead of having that knowledge given to them by God, in a way of His own choice.

However…but if even they chose to sin despite not possessing original sin, what will make us and the saints any different after Christ’s second coming? Won’t the decision to sin still be available?

Well… not really. After all, if we attain heaven, and are there following Christ’s return, then we’ll be in the presence of perfection – of God. In a way, we sin not because we want evil things, but because we make errors in judgment, and decide to pursue things that look good, even though they’re not good. In heaven, we won’t have that problem – in God’s presence, it’s going to be obvious what ‘good’ is; and so we won’t be tempted to choose the ‘bad’ in the way that we’re tempted here. Moreover, there won’t be evil in God’s presence, so it won’t even be around to tempt us.

1. So if the serpent (Satan) was allowed to tempt us, would it be fair to say the Satan is the source of original sin? So essentially, the fall of the angels has repercussions on the fall of mankind, and we’re not really responsible, but a level of a creatures higher than us?

I wouldn’t call Satan the source of sin; maybe the ‘catalyst’ for sin.

1. How would Cain know murder was wrong if he was the first one who’s done it? Wouldn’t the fact that Abel was killing animals and offering them to God give Cain the idea that killing was acceptable?

Killing animals was acceptable, maybe, since God told Adam & Eve that they were to have dominion over the animals (Gen 1); but not over persons.

1. Is Adam and Eve in hell? Their actions pretty much condemned millions of sinners’ souls to hell. Would it be fair to say God may have been easier on sinners back then due to mankind’s infancy?

No… their actions opened the door, but each person who is condemned makes that choice for himself. I don’t think it’s a question of “easier” or “tougher” on sin.

1. Why did God talk more directly with Adam and Eve, but is relatively silent now? (no, I’m not an atheist )

LOL… some suggest that it has to do with the effects of sin…

Um…I’m not sure I agree with Hahn’s interpretation. Is it the Catholic position?

LOL… it is a relatively recent scholarly notion, and it is sufficiently different from traditional interpretations that it kinda makes your eyes bug out a little, doesn’t it? I don’t think we can say that there’s a single “Catholic position” on this one, although many throughout the years have provided commentary…

Or does the Catholic Church give wiggle room to the laity for these interpretations?

Well, Hahn is a Scripture scholar, so I don’t think I’d say that there’s a notion of “wiggle room for laity” in play here. Nevertheless, the idea hasn’t been given any sort of official recognition, so strictly speaking, it’s in the realm of “speculation by theologians”.

1. Did Jesus’s new covenant cancel God’s former desire for animal sacrifice?

Animal sacrifice was something that God made part of the Mosaic covenant; in that time, and in that situation, it was appropriate. I don’t know that we can say that God “desired” it (after all, God says “I desire love, not sacrifice”). Nevertheless, with the destruction of the temple, there’s nowhere for Mosaic sacrifices to be offered, even though there are still Jews who are bound by the Mosaic covenant…

 

[minion]

Thanks! I’ll need to take the time to digest some of these answers.

 

[nordskoven]

POP QUIZ

1) Why did God bother making the Tree of the Fruit of Good and Evil if it would just tempt people to sin?

I suppose because it is an integral part of God’s creation plan on whatever level. Was this fruit a mutagenic as the Doorway Papers suggest?
LINK TO DOORWAY PAPERS: custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html
A co-carrier of some enzyme or catalyst that was needed for the smooth working of creation? But we were warned…And we disobeyed.

2) Why should the human race have to suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve? It’s not my fault they ate the apple.

If Adam’s genes broke–wee Y chromosome?–they broke. See: Custance.

3) Why did God even let the serpent talk to Eve?

Satan had his power and authority from God, only to be eradicated when all mankind has freely chosen God, and never “votes” for Satan. If Adam & Eve had only an “eat all” command and no “eat all minus one” formula, there would have been no allowance for free will, and we’d be no better than animals, including our inability to freely love and obey God or not.

4) Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.

God cursed the fruits of the earth and Cain gave cursed sacrifices, not atoning for the sin and death of the Sin of Adam paralleled in God’s having to shed first blood by killing animals to clothed Adam & Woman.

5) Did other people exist alongside Adam and Eve? Or was it incest? Were they really making children for 900+ years?

Incest. Close breeding, that is, interbreeding near relatives, is needed to stabilize genetics. This is great if the genetics are great as with the first man and woman and their kindred. But God put an end to that down the line. Linebreeding ANXIETY IV gave us the greatness of Herefords. * foodieknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/anxiety_4th-300x202.jpg*

6) If Adam and Eve knew their children would be suffering from their curse of original sin, why did they bother having children in the first place?

“Be fruitful and multiply.” Wanna dis God twice?

7) Is Eden a literal place?

Yep.

 

[Gorgias]

4) Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? If God accepted Cain’s sacrifice, he wouldn’t have gotten jealous and killed Abel.

God cursed the fruits of the earth and Cain gave cursed sacrifices, not atoning for the sin and death of the Sin of Adam paralleled in God’s having to shed first blood by killing animals to clothed Adam & Woman.

Interesting! I don’t think I’ve ever heard this suggestion before!

By the way… if fruits of the earth themselves are ‘cursed’, and this is why the sacrifice wasn’t accepted… then why does God himself mandate grain offerings as part of the Mosaic system of sacrifice?

oh… and Genesis 3:17 says that the ground is cursed, not the things that come forth from it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Interesting! I don’t think I’ve ever heard this suggestion before!

By the way… if fruits of the earth themselves are ‘cursed’, and this is why the sacrifice wasn’t accepted… then why does God himself mandate grain offerings as part of the Mosaic system of sacrifice?

oh… and Genesis 3:17 says that the ground is cursed, not the things that come forth from it.

I don’t necessarily agree with nordskoven’s interpretation.

From what I understand of the passage it was that Cain, 1) didn’t give God “the best” or the “choice” of what he had harvested as God had asked and, 2) Cain’s heart wasn’t in the right place as in He didn’t want to give God anything, that his produce belonged to him alone.

The point of the sacrifies of the OT had nothing to do with God “needing” anything. Instead its about what do they really love. Do they love God, or do they love something other than God.

Its no different than God asking DaVinci to sacrifice the “Mona Lisa”. Cain could have produced numerous amounts of grain from the ground and God would have continued to shower him with blessings. Cain wanted God’s love on his terms instead of God’s terms. And when he didn’t get it and saw that his brother did, he killed his brother.

 

[minion]

Some more questions popped up. Finished up Exodus. I wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to make a new topic, so I’m just bumping my old one…

1. Is Lot’s story literal? Did his wife really get turned into salt just for looking back at the city? That’s kind of messed up.
2. Did Lot’s daughters really have sex with him? Can this be interpreted as a slander by the author to justify attacking Lot’s descendants later?
3. Why did God trick Abraham into thinking he should sacrifice Isaac? Doesn’t that make God a liar? I already knew this story as a kid, but never received a good answer, other than a lesson of obedience. Because, if God told me to do something like rape someone, to be frank, I’d refuse.
4. Why is Abraham allowed to get away with polygamy? Even after Sara’s death? Isn’t that a slimy thing to do? These are the people I’m expected to look up to?
5. Isaac lies about his wife being his sister too? Is this just some type of typology by the author?
6. Couldn’t Jacob just give Esau back his birthright?
7. Jacob gets two wives, after being tricked? Couldn’t he just deny the first marriage?
8. Jacob has sex with handmaids too? Isn’t that adultery? These patriarchs are really considered saints? Jacob seems to be a trickster/deciever in general, and gets away with a lot.

P.S. It was a relief getting to Joseph’s story. FINALLY, a decent person in the OT.

1. Is there proof of the ten plagues God inflicted the Egyptians with? Or is this not meant to be taken literally? What point am I supposed to start taking the Bible literally?
2. Why didn’t God kill the Pharaoh instead of killing every firstborn Egyptian? Wouldn’t it be easier? Wouldn’t it be easier if God just went up the Pharaoh directly and told him he worshiped false gods?
3. Weren’t the billions of commandments in Exodus 21-31 a bit extreme? I couldn’t make sense of that stuff at all.
4. Please tell me I don’t have to understand the instruction manual that is the rest of Exodus to be a good Catholic.
5. Moses really had all the golden calf-worshippers killed after spending all that time freeing them from Egypt? Couldn’t Moses just give them time to repent?
6. God seemed to be communicating with the Israelites a lot compared to now, where he is relatively silent. However, apparitions of Mary make me think she has replaced God’s signs. Am I mistaken? Is there something Biblical about this idea?

If anyone has the time to respond, thanks in advance

 

[grannymh]

minion,
perhaps you will find a beginning to understanding scripture with this page of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

These sources may also provide a beginning for your understanding of scriptural interpretation:

"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm

Catholic Church Documents related to Biblical Studies

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/index.html

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

God bless and guide you on your faith journey.

Warm regards, Trishie

For specific directions as to how to understand the major event in the first three chapters of Genesis, it is essential to read CCC 390.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/390.htm

 

[grannymh]

Thanks! I’ll need to take the time to digest some of these answers.

In my humble opinion, the first three chapters of Genesis should stand on their own, separate from the other 47 chapters. This is because the pivotal Catholic doctrine is the Salvific Mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity – which doctrine has its base in the first three chapters of Genesis.:yup:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition (paragraphs 355-421) provides the Catholic answers to most questions regarding the first three chapters of Genesis. The Catechism does not specify which organic fruit was eaten nor does it give the zip code for the Garden of Eden. Instead, it details the importance of a creature [first human Adam] living in submission to his Creator.

One can enter the Catechism with this link. Warning! This section is not a page turner.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

Blessings,
granny

Adam is the apple of God’s eye.
Example of *both *reality and figurative language.

 

[cap76]

Actually, the Puritans referred to the OT and NT as the two lips by which God speaks.

The entire message of the OT is the same in purpose as the NT; to reveal the hope of the Gospel to the people of God.

Without sin there is no Gospel. The garden was the stage where sin is first introduced, as well as the Gospel, Genesis 3:15.

The OT narratives are filled with examples of God’s wrath upon many sinners, and His mercy upon few. ie. Noah, Abraham, Caleb and Joshua, the spiritual Israel within the national. These narratives are also filled with types of the Messiah. Consider Israel’s righteous leaders, her remarkable deliverances, and the illustrations of her prophets and their preaching.

The OT was a sufficient medium through which Jesus, and His Apostles communicated their message to the Jews. Read the NT book of Hebrews for a clear example of this.

 

[cap76]

Some more questions popped up. Finished up Exodus. I wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to make a new topic, so I’m just bumping my old one…

1. Is Lot’s story literal? Did his wife really get turned into salt just for looking back at the city? That’s kind of messed up.
2. Did Lot’s daughters really have sex with him? Can this be interpreted as a slander by the author to justify attacking Lot’s descendants later?
3. Why did God trick Abraham into thinking he should sacrifice Isaac? Doesn’t that make God a liar? I already knew this story as a kid, but never received a good answer, other than a lesson of obedience. Because, if God told me to do something like rape someone, to be frank, I’d refuse.
4. Why is Abraham allowed to get away with polygamy? Even after Sara’s death? Isn’t that a slimy thing to do? These are the people I’m expected to look up to?
5. Isaac lies about his wife being his sister too? Is this just some type of typology by the author?
6. Couldn’t Jacob just give Esau back his birthright?
7. Jacob gets two wives, after being tricked? Couldn’t he just deny the first marriage?
8. Jacob has sex with handmaids too? Isn’t that adultery? These patriarchs are really considered saints? Jacob seems to be a trickster/deciever in general, and gets away with a lot.

P.S. It was a relief getting to Joseph’s story. FINALLY, a decent person in the OT.

1. Is there proof of the ten plagues God inflicted the Egyptians with? Or is this not meant to be taken literally? What point am I supposed to start taking the Bible literally?
2. Why didn’t God kill the Pharaoh instead of killing every firstborn Egyptian? Wouldn’t it be easier? Wouldn’t it be easier if God just went up the Pharaoh directly and told him he worshiped false gods?
3. Weren’t the billions of commandments in Exodus 21-31 a bit extreme? I couldn’t make sense of that stuff at all.
4. Please tell me I don’t have to understand the instruction manual that is the rest of Exodus to be a good Catholic.
5. Moses really had all the golden calf-worshippers killed after spending all that time freeing them from Egypt? Couldn’t Moses just give them time to repent?
6. God seemed to be communicating with the Israelites a lot compared to now, where he is relatively silent. However, apparitions of Mary make me think she has replaced God’s signs. Am I mistaken? Is there something Biblical about this idea?

If anyone has the time to respond, thanks in advance

1)The destruction of Sodom and the other cities are couched within a much larger narrative which should be taken as historical events. Lot’s wife violated an explicit command which demonstrated that her heart was still with the city. Jesus said to, “Remember Lot’s wife.” The judgment that fell on her serves as a reminder to us that all whose hearts are still fixed on this world will be subject to the wrath to come.

2)Again this is part of the history of Abraham’s nephew and his descendants. Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
The reason it’s here is for us to us learn.

3)God fulfilled His promise to provide a son, and Abraham trusted God to keep that promise. That was the purpose of this event, “God tested Abraham.” Abraham trusted God’s provision right to end and would have sunk the blade into his son, just to prove he believed God as the author of Hebrews reminds us, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

4)The salvation of God is a demonstration of His great mercy toward sinners despite how evil we may be. Let us take warning from others poor example and be encouraged by God’s grace at work in their faith.

5)This is a historical record

6)No. Jacob was a trickster and God used that to once again demonstrate His mercy toward the unworthy. Romans 9, "when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Essau’s greed serves as a warning to us. Hebrews 12, “For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.”

That’s all I have for now, gotta run. Perhaps later I can take a stab at your remaining questions. Hope that’s somewhat helpful.

 

[minion]

Thanks! Getting late and sleep to respond, but I’ll add one more question:

1. In Numbers, Moses casted the lepers out of camp (presumably, left for dead). Isn’t that rather cold?

 

[PennyinCanada]

1. In Numbers, Moses casted the lepers out of camp (presumably, left for dead). Isn’t that rather cold?

Wouldn’t you say that it was smart to separate people that had a communicable disease from everyone else? Wouldn’t you be protecting the vulnerable, the babies, the pregnant women, the elderly? At a time when they didn’t understand how disease was passed from person person, I think that was very smart. Lepers are still people with abilities that could take care of each other. There may have been a place where the healthy people left food for the lepers, and likely once infected, people wanted to keep their families from being infected as well. Wouldn’t you?

 

[minion]

Wouldn’t you say that it was smart to separate people that had a communicable disease from everyone else? Wouldn’t you be protecting the vulnerable, the babies, the pregnant women, the elderly? At a time when they didn’t understand how disease was passed from person person, I think that was very smart. Lepers are still people with abilities that could take care of each other. There may have been a place where the healthy people left food for the lepers, and likely once infected, people wanted to keep their families from being infected as well. Wouldn’t you?

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 5:3[/BIBLEDRB]
“lest they defile it when I shall dwell with you.”

Couldn’t God just heal the lepers instead, then? The way lepers are described in Ch.5 makes me think lepers were not treated in a compassionate manner, but ostracized.

 

[chosen_people]

If we read the book of Jonah (where a Pagan city finds redemption) we see that we are all God’s children and redemption is open to all. In fact, Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get to the world to come as they have only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. In this respect, Judaism teaches a universality which is lacking in those religions that claim only people who accept their specific beliefs may find redemption.

The problem I believe for the Christian reader is in the Christian concept of their god. The relationship of the Christian to their god is that of the relationship of a loving father to his young child. No matter how bad the child has behaved, the father does not stop loving the child and if the child is truly sorry and repentant, will always be forgiven by the father. To take an extreme example, some Catholic posters have written that if Hitler was truly repentant in the moments before his death and truly accepted the Christian leader into his heart, than he may be in the Catholic version of the world to come.

In Judaism God is both all powerful and absolutely just. In the same manner that we must accept that God has the absolute power and discretion to forgive, we must accept that God may come to the just decision that a person or persons are beyond redemption, that justice and the benefit of mankind requires that these people are no longer able to continue spreading their evil.

A good example of the effect of evil is the story of Lot. In the beginning we read that Lot pitched his tents until Sodom. Later we read that he resides in Sodom. He gets into trouble and Abraham comes to his aid. We see how Abraham refuses to take the bounty he is entitled to lest he has anything to do with the people of Sodom. Finally, we read that Lot is sitting at the gate of Sodom, a right reserved only for elders of the city. Lot finds himself in the most horrible dilemma, forced between his Torah values and the evil of Sodom, which God destroys.

Many of the things that are thought to be “harsh” are merely misunderstandings of the Jewish scriptures

some examples:

A Christian reads Judges and believes that a man turned his daughter into a human sacrifice

Of course, she could not be sacrificed, but she also could not work in any capacity, or marry, or be “used for breeding”, for the rest of her life. She lived the rest of her life in seclusion, devoted herself to prayer, never married or had children and never knew a man.

Similarly, an “eye for an eye” in Judaism is not mutilation of a person who has blinded another (nor impunity to the offender if he happens to be blind) but monetary compensation

The Christian reads of a “death penalty” for a particular sin, but has no knowledge of the almost impossible conditions (committing the act in front of at least two witnesses, being warned and continuing to commit the act despite the warning) which made a conviction in a Jewish court virtually impossible. Nor do they have knowledge of the Jewish Sages attitudes against the death penalty (quite rightly you have never heard of a convicted terrorist, no matter how many people he killed, ever being sentenced to death and executed by the Jewish State of Israel). Often they do not differentiate between a “Divine punishment” from God and one to be carried out here on earth.

 

[fisherman_carl]

This may help you.

youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0D-BLWY70