I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
Great summary of how most of us feel Nate. You put it in very simple terms, while pointing out the glaring inconsistencies with this view. I especially liked how you pointed out God’s unchanging nature, and his mean streak in the NT. The mention of Uzzah is one that resonates with me, as I never understood that passage even as a Xian. I agreed with King David, who protested God’s murder there.
LikeLike
in the 16th century Calvin recognised something of this issue and developed what he called the Doctrine of Accommodation. He suggested that God revealed himself in ways that people could understand within their culture. Hence as culture advanced God’s self revelation became more sophisticated.
I have not tested this against the Bible, but for it to be credible the self revelation of God would need to be moving in one direction.
For some time I had puzzled how in the first five books of the Bible God has people killed just for grumbling or picking up firewood on the Sabbath, yet in the Book of Samuel King David commits murder and adultery and is not killed. In the New Testament we see that it is punishment in the after life that becomes the focus.
Calvin clearly was aware of problems in interpreting the Bible, even in his day he saw the challenges posed by science. He argued that it was a mistake to see the Bible as a book of science. The early stories in Genesis were what Calvin described as God’s ‘baby talk’, that is explaining profound truths in ways that unsophisticated people could understand. Calvin’s explanation runs up against one major problem, Jesus and the apostle Paul seemed to argue that the early events of Genesis were actual history.
In regard to the changing nature of God, or revelation, the most significant change is the concept of the afterlife, It hardly gets a mention in the Old Testament, but is frequently mentioned by Jesus and and the epistles. Interestingly Jesus was the teacher who really emphasised hell.
LikeLike
Good points, Peter.
you said,
“in the 16th century Calvin recognised something of this issue and developed what he called the Doctrine of Accommodation. He suggested that God revealed himself in ways that people could understand within their culture. Hence as culture advanced God’s self revelation became more sophisticated.”
and what is interesting to me about this view is that if it was this way, it still fails to accommodate everyone, as many of us look at it and dont understand the god of the early OT, compared to the god of the late OT, compared to the god of the NT.
I’ve heard this a lot in regard to the opposing genealogies of Matthew and Luke. “Well, the first century jew wouldnt have had difficulty with it…”
I find that to be very stupid. Would the 1st century jews not understand cohesive and matching genealogies? Why then would god not reveal matching genealogies?
that’s just one example.
LikeLike
“In regard to the changing nature of God, or revelation, the most significant change is the concept of the afterlife, It hardly gets a mention in the Old Testament, but is frequently mentioned by Jesus and and the epistles. Interestingly Jesus was the teacher who really emphasised hell.”
I contend that to be because in the early Bible, the Jewish people were isolationists, but after the Babylonian Exile, in the 6th century BCE and exposure to Zoroastrianism, and the Alexandrian conquest in the 4th, with the Greek belief in a Hades, the Hebrews adapted their own religion accordingly. It had nothing to do with a god inspiring authors, but with priests deciding what was best for their flocks of sheeple (and their own job security).
LikeLike
Yay, Nate! I know you don’t care about stats, but when you began the Kathy debacle last summer, you had 274 subscribers – you’ve since added 100!
LikeLike
Congrats, Nate. 🙂
LikeLike
Hey, that’s cool! And I’m impressed that you’ve remembered that, Arch! 🙂
LikeLike
@Think Always
Thanks for the comment! Yeah, the Uzzah story always bothered me… So did the story about the young prophet that was misled by an older prophet and subsequently killed by a lion. I always had a hard time with those.
@Peter
Thanks for the information! I didn’t know all of that about Calvin. It never ceases to amaze me how many different explanations and interpretations people are able to come up with in looking at the Bible. To think I used to believe there was one true ® way of looking at all of it…
LikeLike
Near-eidetic memory here – I forget only those things I want to forget, which saves my sanity.
I just quoted a poem, verbatim, on VioletWisp’s site that I memorized at 16.
LikeLike
I ain’t 16 no more —
LikeLike
Nice. 🙂 I can remember pieces of poems that I memorized, but I think the only thing I still remember verbatim is William Wallace’s speech in Braveheart.
LikeLike
Sorry, it wasn’t Vi’s at all, it was Zoe’s, which is why I say, NEAR eidetic memory —
LikeLike
@Nate
They are probably all from unklee’s fan club sent to hassle Arch. They won’t rest until he gets banned from your blog, Nate.
This happens fairly regularly I might add. He does have a reputation.
LikeLike
I know you are, but what am I –?
LikeLike
Besides, everyone knows that I’M the good one! Even Tricia, on ColorStorm’s blog, said it was obvious that I was far more housebroken than you!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“For some time I had puzzled how in the first five books of the Bible God has people killed just for grumbling or picking up firewood on the Sabbath, yet in the Book of Samuel King David commits murder and adultery and is not killed.”
Yes Peter, but what was David’s punishment ? It was actually 2 fold.
1.) 2 Sam 12:11 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
What if David’s wives didn’t want to have sex with one of his close friends in broad daylight ???
2.)2 Sam 12:13 Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
Here is a typical example of children being punished for their parent’s sins.
I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation let alone justification of these 2 punishments except, “God’s ways are not always our ways” Thank God for that !!! 🙂
LikeLike
Great points kcchief1, I’ve always used king David to show others that god did in fact approve and even bless polygamy in the OT. The idea of god punishing kids for the parents sins seems horrible (and it is) but when you think about it this is the same god that punished his own son because billions of yet to be born people were going to screw up.
LikeLike
“The idea of god punishing kids for the parents sins seems horrible (and it is) but when you think about it this is the same god that punished his own son because billions of yet to be born people were going to screw up.”
How does a Christian wrap his mind around this ? Thanks for sharing, Matt !
LikeLike
@kcchief1
Thanks for your insight. Another thing that puzzles me is when David takes a census, 2 Samuel 24, God exacts the most terrible revenge on the people killing 70,000 people of Israel.
Looking at the story with different eyes I could argue there was a plague in Israel and people struggled to explain it and concluded something must have upset God. So it could be putting a supernatural explanation on a natural outcome.
LikeLike
@Matt
I heard a talk recently where it was said that the Bible did not specifically endorse or criticize polygamy. However when you look at the stories of the people with multiple wives, the wives always seem to argue among themselves and cause the husband grief. Thus it was concluded that in its own way the Bible was telling the discerning reader that polygamy was not a good idea.
LikeLike
@ Matt, “Thus it was concluded that in its own way the Bible was telling the discerning reader that polygamy was not a good idea.”
I don’t think man needed the bible to realize that ! LOL
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant to type @ Peter 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments as well , Peter !
LikeLike
UnkleE reminds me a lot of my former pastor. Very intelligent. Formidable in debate. Very educated…but…still views reality through the worldview that good ghosts and bad ghosts govern every aspect of our universe, and, at this very moment, these invisible beings are engaged in an epic struggle for control of our brains (“souls”).
Unkle E and my former pastor are supernaturalists. We ex-Christian atheists and agnostics are naturalists; we reject the supernatural and the many superstitions associated with it. Unkle E and my former pastor may be talented debaters, but they can never prove the reality of the supernatural, just as we cannot disprove its existence.
But let’s not forget their agenda: to drag us back into a world of ghosts and ghouls. And let’s not forget ours: to lead these misguided “souls” out of the darkness of ancient superstitions.
LikeLike