VJack from the Atheist Revolution is reading the Bible from cover to cover since it has been forever since he’s done that, and he wants to see if his atheism is going to make a difference. He’s sharing his initial impressions now, so I thought I’d analyze them.
This is the first time I’ve read the NIV translation, and it certainly makes for an easier read than the King James. Still, I like to go back and forth to compare both versions and note some of the seemingly important differences. As but one example, NIV replaces “thou shalt not kill” with “you will not murder.” At least to my mind, there is a world of difference between the meaning of “kill” and that of “murder.”
Having free Bible study software has finally paid off. The word rendered “kill” in the KJV and “murder” in the NIV is the Hebrew word ratsach (Strong’s H7523), which is a “primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).” The word literally means “kill,” but it is properly understood as “murder.”
Genesis makes for an interesting read, and I genuinely enjoyed it. A certain beauty is evident in some of the language and imagery. Of course, one must set aside the realities of modern science to some degree or else one will experience it as little more than a list of false claims about nature.
Wow, I could do a Dave Armstrong 8000 Word Answer To That Tiny Paragraph Alone(tm). To use just one example, if you use the word “kind” in Gen 1:21 to mean “species,” then you have a scientific falsehood. Scientists have observed speciation, the separating of one species into another species. But, if we understand “kind” as “type of animal,” then we have no such falsehood.
As for the creation story itself, I can’t recommend any better apologetics resources than Evidence for God from Science, and my own friend Mike the Geocreationist’s site. Those guys do a great job of reconciling the “differences” between mainstream science and the Bible.
The god described in these first three books is difficult to recommend. This god is presumably almighty and yet needs to rest while creating the universe. This god is presumably wise beyond measure but places two forbidden trees (that of knowledge and that of life) in the Garden of Eden where early humans can access them. Moreover, this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan. Thus, with regard to power and knowledge, this god seems to be quite flawed.
Wow. Where to begin? Well, first of all, my atheist friend from work once told me that the Bible says that God needs no rest, yet He rested on the seventh day. I have the same answer I gave then for VJack: I don’t need to keep this blog, but I do. I don’t need to drink Pepsi, but I do. Because a person (made in the image of God) doesn’t need to do something, doesn’t preclude him from doing it. Same with God. He rested, though it wasn’t necessary.
It should be noted that the Tree of Life was not forbidden, only the Tree of Knowledge.
Note that the creation account was marked by separating opposites: Light from darkness (remember this; it is recurring theme), day from night, sky from earth, and dry land from ocean. This is a world defined by opposites. The Tree of Life represents eternal life (light), and the Tree of Knowledge represents death (darkness). We cannot be truly free willed creatures unless we have right choices to make and wrong choices to make. If every choice led to eternal life in heaven with God and happiness, then we would be “slaves to righteousness.”
Instead, the Bible teaches that we are slaves to sin–the Tree of Knowledge (Eph2:1-3). Remember this part, too, as this will become very important as VJack later tries to ruminate on God’s actions from a moral standpoint. That is very interesting that a slave to sin, to unrighteousness, is prepared to make a moral judgment upon his creator.
There are good choices in the world, and there are bad choices. Unless we had both, I would argue that we aren’t free. We can only make one choice–either good or bad, whatever is present. But both are present, as well as the ability to distinguish between them. We are slaves to sin–the wrong choices–and we continuously make the wrong choices.
Instead of looking at it the way VJack does, “this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan;” look at as though we botched things up pretty bad. In my previous post, I talk about taking responsibility for our actions. With the choices God enabled us to make, we must take responsibility for making the wrong ones–even if we are enslaved to sin.
Some people are confused on the point of God’s omnipotence and omniscience. They believe that if God already knows the result of our choices, that we are forced to make them. It doesn’t logically follow that if someone knows we will do something, that we must do that. It only means that this someone knows we will. That until we make the choice, it is simply another possibility until we make the choice and turn it into an actuality.
This alleviates God from the responsibility for our decisions, and places it squarely upon our own shoulders. That means it was human action that necessitated the flood, and that we are the ones responsible for bringing God’s judgment. We must accept that, not place it all on God as VJack does.
Now the fun part. A creature passing moral judgments upon his creator:
What about morality? Well, there is little question about this. This god repeatedly refers to itself as jealous and demonstrates wrath, impatience, cruelty, intolerance, and more. The god described in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus is certainly willing to provide humanity with a number of laws, the majority of which are completely ignored by virtually all modern Christians. This god makes it clear that it is to be honored with animal blood and burnt offerings (i.e., animals sacrificed and burned on altars). However, most modern Christians would never dream of doing this, going so far as to equate such acts with Satanism when they were in fact mandated by the very god they claim to worship.
God defines our reality. Everything is a little less real when compared to Him. He made us in His image, and so it is very likely that He demonstrates a lot of the same types and characteristics that we do. As for jealousy, I would say that He is the Creator of the Universe and all life therein, so I think that He is justified in being jealous if we, who owe everything to him, pay homage to other deities that are nothing more than carved idols.
I would like to see a cite for impatience. I can counter with references to infinite patience.
Cruelty is subjective, so is intolerance. The Jews were the chosen people, so cruelty and intolerance to other peoples would be expected. During the events in the Torah, God’s covenant is only with the descendants of Isaac.
Wrath is another story altogether. Remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23; cf. Eph 2:1-3). Sin is a violation of the divine law of God. So we should expect that we have incurred His wrath if we do sin. The Bible clearly teaches us that we do sin; we are slaves to sin–we are dead in sin. Therefore, as above, we must take responsibility for our decisions when they don’t line up with God’s law and accept the fault for incurring His wrath.
Let’s examine why Christians “ignore” laws laid out in the Torah. I’m glad that VJack used the example of animal blood, since that is key to understanding the atonement of Christ. Repeatedly throughout Leviticus, God requests that we make animal sacrifices and pour the blood out as an atonement offering for sin. But, as VJack rightly observes, no Christian today would ever do something like that. But why, when the Bible so clearly tells us that that is how God wants us to atone for our sins against Him? After all, there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22).
The answer lies in the book of Hebrews:
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11)
In other words, Jesus has now nullified the old covenant, under which animal sacrifices were required, and ushered in a new covenant. But, why aren’t animal sacrifices necessary? Because of Jesus Himself:
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:18-25, emphasis added)
So we have a better covenant in Christ, and He saves us to the uttermost, not the animal sacrifices. For
. . . when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he(X) entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb 9:11-14, emphasis added)
The prophet Malachi also predicted a new type of sacrifice:
Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Mal 1:10-11, emphasis added)
What does that mean? I propose that it is answered by the apostle Paul in the book of Romans: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (12:1). Our bodies, purified by the blood of Christ, can now be offered to God as living sacrifices, living according to His word and not according to the ways of the world.
This is why there are no animal sacrifices. We have found a superior atonement for sin through Christ, and our now-purified bodies may be offered as a living sacrifice to God.
VJack continues:
The infamous passage in Leviticus does indeed state that male homosexuality is wrong (and that men who engage in homosexual must be killed), and yet, this is embedded among so many other laws given to humanity that it hardly stands out. It is fascinating that Christians obsess about the couple brief mentions this receives while completely ignoring the call for blood sacrifices, the clear requirement of stoning for minor crimes, and the multitude of references to the evils of yeast.
It is not fascinating in the least the such a big deal is made about this insignificant law. Christians are not the ones who make a big deal out of it. I have gay friends and I don’t preach to them. I doubt they know my position on homosexuality at all–that I believe it is sin, as the Bible teaches. This is an issue that gay rights groups have fought to bring to the forefront of controversy.
Homosexuality should be treated as any other sin. The homosexual should be urged to honor God with his or her lifestyle, and then shown in the Bible why homosexuality is wrong. That person shouldn’t be allowed into church leadership until the lifestyle is renounced for good, but by the same token he should also not be excluded from the church or made to feel unwelcome in any way. Granted, the second one is tough after a confrontation about his lifestyle, but the gospel message is meant to offend people. It is meant to make people feel uncomfortable. That is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit at work.
As for minor crimes–well, a sin is a sin in God’s eyes. Stoning disobedient children serves to underscore how serious that offense is in God’s eyes, even if it is only relatively minor in our own.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m glad that today’s Christians ignore nearly all of the laws their biblical god hands down in these three books. And yet, I remain puzzled that anyone claiming to be a Christian can ignore all of this, selectively choosing the couple parts that make them feel good while neglecting the bulk of what is actually there. This is the sort of god who is unlikely to react favorably to such neglect. If I believed in such a god, I don’t think I’d go near anything containing yeast!
I think that I have satisfactorily answered his conclusion. The laws are meant as guideposts for living until Christ came to set us free from our bondage to sin. The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life, according to the apostle Paul. The issues pertaining to morality are the ones we pay special attention to.
As to choosing only the parts that make me feel good, I struggle with sin each day of my life. I wish I had it as easy as VJack claims I do; I wish I could ignore the parts that give me pause. I wish I could look lustfully upon women–but I know that is sin. I wish I could take more shortcuts at work, but knowing that I work for God and not for Burger King stops me almost every time. (Yes, almost–I never claim perfection! I too fall short of God’s glory.) I wish I could read notes in the office not addressed to me to keep up on what’s going on or entertain dark fantasies.
In VJack’s world, I can because I’m a Christian and I can do whatever I want while still claiming morality. But I know that isn’t the case, and I pray that I have shown why that is not the case.
“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8:32)
Comments(4) 
The issue here is the relevance of social mores that were written between 1450 and 1410 b.c. by Moses, who would have never had so much as a glimpse of modern life. Therefore, why would what he wrote for a group of people, wandering in the desert, be relevant to someone living, stationary, in the Midwestern United States in a.d. 2007?
Well, Jesus and His Father not being in complete agreement. That sentiment betrays Jeff’s misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually is. Each Person–Father, Son, and Spirit–is an individual person with all of the faculties of a person. But each is of the same substance: God.
