Because the Bible is ancient literature, one of the pleasures (for me) in reading it is tracing the evolution of ideas. Sometimes, ideas from the Bible can point out ways contemporary culture has gone off the rails. Sometimes ideas from the Bible make me appreciate how far we’ve come.
I think of it kind of like having an opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with someone who lived 2500 years ago. What would I want to ask them? What might I learn from them? And how did we get from there to here?
As I read the Bible, the human-divine partnership involves growth/evolution on both sides. This leads to some uncomfortable ideas about God (for us contemporary folk) but also opens something up about spiritual growth and evolution that tends not to be part of the contemporary conversation.
I love this. I’ve been reading the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for the first time and was shocked by the many examples of an angry/reactionary God. (I went into my reading assuming God is just and perfect.)
But, for some reason, this imperfect, emotional God feels more genuine than a perfect one. He/God feels more real. I loved your take on this.
Before I write anything, I want you to know thatI have left my faith of origin, Catholicism and no longer view the Bible as authoritative. If I look at this as a literary work, then the only way I can relate to God who is subject to emotions, is to imagine that God is like me or is me. If God is ever-changing, then how can he be truth and love which never change? Can he be both changing and unchanging?
Shimon Bar Yochai is one of those Talmudic characters who is a model of virtue. One of his brags is that in his lifetime there was never a rainbow seen. Meaning that G-d did not have to remind himself that he promised not to destroy all humanity.
It's like we ruined rainbows for ourselves by making them a symbol of wrath.
Is 'every living thing' used in the passage as the plural? I can't help but wonder if the promise to not strike out at 'every living thing's doesn't open up a way that he can strike out at only *some* living things (animals, plants, us). And would there be some way that the definition of living things could be manipulated in a way as to not count some as part of 'every living thing'?
It's an honest question, and I mean no disrespect by it. The Hebrew lexicons available online can be very informative but are at times difficult for those not used to them to consult and fully understand.
Because the Bible is ancient literature, one of the pleasures (for me) in reading it is tracing the evolution of ideas. Sometimes, ideas from the Bible can point out ways contemporary culture has gone off the rails. Sometimes ideas from the Bible make me appreciate how far we’ve come.
I think of it kind of like having an opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with someone who lived 2500 years ago. What would I want to ask them? What might I learn from them? And how did we get from there to here?
As I read the Bible, the human-divine partnership involves growth/evolution on both sides. This leads to some uncomfortable ideas about God (for us contemporary folk) but also opens something up about spiritual growth and evolution that tends not to be part of the contemporary conversation.
This was great Dan! Not only illuminating, but also fun. I appreciate your wisdom and humour!
I love this. I’ve been reading the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for the first time and was shocked by the many examples of an angry/reactionary God. (I went into my reading assuming God is just and perfect.)
But, for some reason, this imperfect, emotional God feels more genuine than a perfect one. He/God feels more real. I loved your take on this.
Before I write anything, I want you to know thatI have left my faith of origin, Catholicism and no longer view the Bible as authoritative. If I look at this as a literary work, then the only way I can relate to God who is subject to emotions, is to imagine that God is like me or is me. If God is ever-changing, then how can he be truth and love which never change? Can he be both changing and unchanging?
Dan,
It might just be possible people interpret the bible as it was taught to them. Moving forward from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood.
It can also become a pick and choose type of bible reader?
Shimon Bar Yochai is one of those Talmudic characters who is a model of virtue. One of his brags is that in his lifetime there was never a rainbow seen. Meaning that G-d did not have to remind himself that he promised not to destroy all humanity.
It's like we ruined rainbows for ourselves by making them a symbol of wrath.
Is 'every living thing' used in the passage as the plural? I can't help but wonder if the promise to not strike out at 'every living thing's doesn't open up a way that he can strike out at only *some* living things (animals, plants, us). And would there be some way that the definition of living things could be manipulated in a way as to not count some as part of 'every living thing'?
It's an honest question, and I mean no disrespect by it. The Hebrew lexicons available online can be very informative but are at times difficult for those not used to them to consult and fully understand.