Why did God condone/command this?

[AlNg]

In light of the contradictions you mention and we can all observe, and in light of the fact that in God there is no contradiction, what other explanations are available?

I am not sure why you are asking me this question, since I am not an expert in this area, as so many other posters here on CAF are experts and extremely knowledgeable in theology. However, since you asked for my humble opinion, I would venture a guess to say that perhaps our notion of God is not quite right, and that God can change His mind. After all, it is noted in Holy Scripture that God changed His mind on a number of occasions.
Exodus 32:14 So the Lord changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people.
Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He changed His mind and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.
Another explanation I heard (it did not originate with me) is that perhaps the contradictions are expressing the same perfect truth, but since we are looking at it from different points of view, the way of expressing this perfect truth will vary depending on the culture, period in history, angle and lens through which we are viewing this perfect truth.

 

[Gorgias]

When I say ‘literal history’, i mean a blow by blow account of what happened as we get in modern history books.

My point was that history was NOT recorded in that way in the past. Apologies if that wasn’t clear

And… this is where you “reject everything I said.” It’s important to realize that what the ancients would have considered “literal history” is not what we would mean by that phrase. The fact that it doesn’t look like “history” to us doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have been considered “literal history” by them.

So, accounts that we wouldn’t consider “literal history” today would, in fact, be considered accounts of “literal history” by the ancients. Apparently, that’s not clear to you – one would hope that it were.

I personally think the very strange things like the pillar of salt are figurative - I believe that Lot’s wife was reluctant to leave Sodom (and its sinful ways) behind and suffered the consequence of being caught up in the destruction. Purely a personal interpretation - might be off the wall entirely.

Yep. On both counts – personal interp and potentially off the wall. Here’s a question for you: if your take is accurate, why would the Bible present different outcomes for Lot’s sons-in-law and Lot’s wife? After all, according to your interpretation, they were both “reluctant to leave Sodom’s sinful ways behind.” Yet, they meet very different ends. So… especially in a ‘figurative account’ – in which details speak to real meanings, rather than real events… what’s the meaning of Lot’s wife’s death, as compared to Lot’s sons-in-laws’?

I mean, I’m willing to consider your take on things… but if you’re gonna claim ‘figurative’, you should have explanations… right?

I am not sure why you are asking me this question

Because you’re the one positing ‘contradictions’.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

1. you are arguing semantics. Of course the people of the past thought that their way of recording history was the best way. That doesnt mean that 900 years in the bible was literally 900 solar years. I think anyone reading my posts would understand that is what I meant. If not, I hope I’ve clarified my position- I’ve defined what I mean by literal history several times and I do not consider the OT to be a literalistic historical account of events, even though it is undoubtedly AN historical account recorded in a different style containing truths, but not the LITERAL truth in every passage.
2. I imagine Lot’s wife was more reluctant to the point of lagging behind and got caught up in the destruction. As I stated, personal opinion. Reject it if you like, no one has any way of knowing what actually happened. If you think it’s literal, there is just as much onus on you to demonstrate why you think that as there is on me to demonstrate that it is figurative. Something neither of us can do.

 

[joseie]

It require only some simple common sense to know as to when the idea that what all said in the Bible should not be be taken in a literal sense came up.For example the 6 day creation theory -everybody believed as true and it was meant like that only.But when centuries later it was felt that Earth could not have been created in just 6 days,all sorts of stories and justifications were fabricated such as that the days mentioned is not the normal days as understood by humans…,Greek equivalent of the translation
of day is different etc.This is exactly the situation in most cases where it is now vehemently argued that the literal meaning should not be taken . My question is simple:Why the the plain literal meaning of the verses should not be taken if it has such a meaning?Why a plain ,simple meaning was given to the verse by God,if such meaning is meaningless?As I said the answer is also simple.A complicated, allegorical meaning as different from the plain meaning it conveys was necessary to be given for the convenience of some.Dont fall for it…

 

[AlNg]

Because you’re the one positing ‘contradictions’.

I am only telling you what is written in Holy Scripture in response to the idea that God does not contradict Himself. Holy Scripture tells us that God has changed His mind. I can show you what is written in Holy Scripture, but I can’t require that anyone accept it.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Actually, even St Augustine didn’t believe that the creation days were literal. He believed it was recorded as taking 6 days because 6 was considered a perfect number. He believed it was created instantaneously. A non-literalistic view of some parts of the bible is an old concept.

 

[joseie]

Any reference for this?What prompted him not to believe the 6 days story?

 

[Benadam]

Imagine what the world would be like if the command had been carried out. To start I don’t think slavery as we know it would have happened.

 

[TULIPed]

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

#sameGod

 

[ShrodingersCat]

It’s from Trent Horn’s book, Hard Sayings. This is the quote from the book - it goes into more detail but I don’t want to post messages that are too long.

According to Augustine, six represents how the world is perfected through the act of Creation.87 The Catechism says, “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (337). Jesus himself even says this “rest” is symbolic because God, who sustains all of existence, has been working since the Creation (John 5:17). The Catholic Church allows a person to believe the earth is only six thousand years old and was created in six days, but it does not require this belief.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t even think many people on this forum actually disagree with me, but maaaaan I’m getting roasted. I must be terrible at getting my point across. That’s what you get for posting after 10 pm I guess.

Your responses have sounded like you very clearly reject a literal interpretation, so yeah, something is being lost in translation here.

To be clear though, I don’t necessarily disagree with your interpretation, it just really does sound like you’re saying these events couldn’t literally have happened, which is why you’re getting so much backlash.

I learned recently that, at the sites which Biblical historians believe are probably Sodom and Gomorrah, after the cities were flattened, the dead sea overflowed and filled the entire region with a thick layer of salt.

 

[Atreju]

The infants were evil?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Ok thanks. I guess my posts read differently than they sound in my head. I thought my 2nd post made it clear that a literal interpretation of the OPs verse was possible but I personally thought the non literalistic one more likely.

I probably didn’t do a good job of explaining that, for example, I believe there was a great flood, but it potentially didn’t cover the entire planet and the ark probably didn’t have 2 of every single species in existence. Just because a story contains hyperbole doesn’t mean it’s not true though.

 

[goout]

goout:

In light of the contradictions you mention and we can all observe, and in light of the fact that in God there is no contradiction, what other explanations are available?

I am not sure why you are asking me this question, since I am not an expert in this area, as so many other posters here on CAF are experts and extremely knowledgeable in theology. However, since you asked for my humble opinion, I would venture a guess to say that perhaps our notion of God is not quite right, and that God can change His mind. After all, it is noted in Holy Scripture that God changed His mind on a number of occasions.
Exodus 32:14 So the Lord changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people.
Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He changed His mind and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.
Another explanation I heard (it did not originate with me) is that perhaps the contradictions are expressing the same perfect truth, but since we are looking at it from different points of view, the way of expressing this perfect truth will vary depending on the culture, period in history, angle and lens through which we are viewing this perfect truth.

I think Christian doctrine is more in line with your bolded statement. Where there are contradictions, we must look at the various imperfect human elements rather than accusing God of the cruelties depicted.
If God changes his nature from the OT to the NT then God is not really God.

 

[Gorgias]

you are arguing semantics.

If by that you mean that I’m arguing the meanings of the words that you’re throwing around so blithely, then yeah… that’s what I’m doing.

I’ve defined what I mean by literal history several times and I do not consider the OT to be a literalistic historical account of events

I agree, to an extent. In the way that we use those terms, we wouldn’t consider that some parts of the OT are literal history. However, there are two salient questions which you (surprisingly) continue to refuse to answer:

• Are you saying that there are no historical accounts (by the standards that we use today) in the OT?
• Are you saying that the inspired author did not intend to write what he or his original audience would have considered an historical account?

These really are important questions: the first one gets to whether you dissent from the teachings of the Church regarding the Bible, and the second one asks you to identify the text in terms of its original intended audience. I don’t think that this is “quibbling semantics” at all, but rather, is meant to get to the heart of the question.

I imagine Lot’s wife was more reluctant to the point of lagging behind and got caught up in the destruction.

OK – so, in a figurative account, in which narrative has symbolic meaning, we’ve got sons-in-law who “lag behind” and Lot’s wife who “lags behind” – but in different ways – but meet the same fate. What’s the symbolic meaning there? If it’s a figurative account, there has to be some meaning behind this difference, no?

If you think it’s literal, there is just as much onus on you to demonstrate why you think that as there is on me to demonstrate that it is figurative.

No there isn’t. I’m not making the claim that it’s literal – I’m just asking you to substantiate the claim that you’re making that it’s figurative! So… on what basis do you make that claim?

 

[Gorgias]

Holy Scripture tells us that God has changed His mind. I can show you what is written in Holy Scripture, but I can’t require that anyone accept it.

Yes, it says that. Yet, you’re not arguing Scripture – you’re arguing your personal literalistic interpretation of those passages! And you’re right – since a literalistic interpretation of those citations are at odds with a traditional Christian understanding of God, there’s no way I’m going to accept your interpretation!

 

[goout]

ShrodingersCat:

I don’t even think many people on this forum actually disagree with me, but maaaaan I’m getting roasted. I must be terrible at getting my point across. That’s what you get for posting after 10 pm I guess.

Your responses have sounded like you very clearly reject a literal interpretation, so yeah, something is being lost in translation here.

To be clear though, I don’t necessarily disagree with your interpretation, it just really does sound like you’re saying these events couldn’t literally have happened, which is why you’re getting so much backlash.

I learned recently that, at the sites which Biblical historians believe are probably Sodom and Gomorrah, after the cities were flattened, the dead sea overflowed and filled the entire region with a thick layer of salt.

Here’s an important distinction to ponder in 1 Samuel 15.
The historical elements of the passage are there. Ok, what do we do with historical elements? Upon investigation, we can admit those historical elements.

1 Yes, the Israelites engaged in battle
2 Yes, many people were killed
3 Yes, they put the ban on the entire enemy culture down to the women and children noncombatants.
4 Yes they saw this as God’s will and command to kill innocents, and recorded it as such in the annals of their history.
The literal value of the passage is what it is, and that includes historical elements rooted in time and place, as they understood them.

And at the same time you have to read all these things in the light of Christ. And if Christ is God’s full and final revelation, you can see that some of the ancient cultural understanding is not compatible with God’s revealed nature. Specifically, point 4 is not compatible with God’s revealed nature.
And so we admit the story is relayed in the literal manner, but because of the contradiction with God’s nature, we have to look deeper, and not take the easy way out. There is a deep spiritual Truth here, and we don’t throw the words out. We accept them as written and look for Truth in a way compatible with God’s nature in Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

Any reference for this?

It’s from Trent Horn’s book, Hard Sayings.

Actually, it’s from Augustine’s essay, “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis”. If you Google the title, you’ll find many hits on the subject.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

God has the right to take what He has given.

 

[Atreju]

But why even say they were evil, then? And why order people to kill the infants? It’s a gross attitude, this glibness towards infanticide.