Violence in the Old Testament

[Poof]

How does one respond to these claims? This is one question that has been thrown at me several several times and I always end up “lacking in my answers”. There are verses in the bible that explicitly support the stoning of children, etc and I often feel a sense of insecurity when dealing with questions like these. Is saying “the bible is not to be taken literally” a sufficient response to these claims? Can someone give me a good and through explanation on the subject at hand?

Thanks guys!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How does one respond to these claims? This is one question that has been thrown at me several several times and I always end up “lacking in my answers”. There are verses in the bible that explicitly support the stoning of children, etc and I often feel a sense of insecurity when dealing with questions like these. Is saying “the bible is not to be taken literally” a sufficient response to these claims? Can someone give me a good and through explanation on the subject at hand?

Thanks guys!

You are talking about the history of salvATION. God educated His people thorugh time and it took time to educcate it. I will give you a simple and the most outstanding example.

1. In the old times, it was the law of the jungle: If someone killed my brother, I could go to the killer village, raze it all, take to women as sex slaves and men as slaves. Or do whatever I feel like, just razed the village andkill everybody, even childre.
2. Then came a new law: “One eye for one eye, one tooth for one tooth”. It was a big improvement, I tellyou. If someone took one tooth from you you were not allowed to razed his entire village but you were allowed to take one and only tooth from him.
3. Then came another improvement: Do to others what you like that people would do to you. It was more generous and less selfish. It compelled people to think on others. It was not so egoistic.
4. finally, the atomic bomb: Love your enemies, said Jesus, the supreme commandment of love.

You think that God could take Humanity, dumb as we are, from 1 to 4 in one week?. No, of course. So, you have got to think on which stage was Humanity when the sentences were uttered. We cannot take a sentence uttered fromthe jungle and interpretet it as in the 21st century

 

[NewsTheMan]

If the Bible were a book about man obeying all the precepts of God, His will and His goodness, it would be a very short book.

“In the beginning God made everything, and Man obeyed. The end.”

 

[Poof]

1. In the old times, it was the law of the jungle: If someone killed my brother, I could go to the killer village, raze it all, take to women as sex slaves and men as slaves. Or do whatever I feel like, just razed the village andkill everybody, even childre.

1. Then came a new law: “One eye for one eye, one tooth for one tooth”. It was a big improvement, I tellyou. If someone took one tooth from you you were not allowed to razed his entire village but you were allowed to take one and only tooth from him.

1. Then came another improvement: Do to others what you like that people would do to you. It was more generous and less selfish. It compelled people to think on others. It was not so egoistic.

1. finally, the atomic bomb: Love your enemies, said Jesus, the supreme commandment of love.

You think that God could take Humanity, dumb as we are, from 1 to 4 in one week?. No, of course. So, you have got to think on which stage was Humanity when the sentences were uttered. We cannot take a sentence uttered fromthe jungle and interpretet it as in the 21st century

True but that stoning children still sounds wrong and I don’t see how God could allow that, even if morals back then were a one.

 

[Alder]

Hey Poof,

Here are a couple of ways I’ve heard the violence in the OT explained

1. The acts of violence serve some kind of “greater good” that isn’t apparent to the reader;
2. God did not command these acts of violence (such as the stoning of children). The books in which these acts of violence are prescribed ( such as in Leviticus) are the Israelites’ own beliefs about HOW God’s law should be enforced.;
3. What Pfaffenhoffen said;

. Is saying “the bible is not to be taken literally” a sufficient response to these claims? Can someone give me a good and through explanation on the subject at hand?

Depends on what they are objecting to. If it’s something like Noah’s flood…maybe. You can claim that it’s just a myth used to explain something. However, If it’s something the stoning of children… probably not.

Alder