Testing The Christian Apologists

Huh? I was referring to the bronze Age Goat Herders. Not you specifically. All that I think I may have over you...and what the Goat herders too could claim...is in encountering God. The jury is out on that one, however.

You didn't answer the question. I asked, "... what makes you think you know more about God?" Why do you know more than the ancient goat-herders who wrote about God lying? Why is your perspective, cluttered as it is by books and apologetics, better than theirs?

No you were not. Try to keep track of your own posts, at least. You used the word "you" specifically:

quote:

---

None of us are worthy to discipline you. Message 520

---

in reply to Theodoric saying:

quote:

---

Do you think believers should be able to punish nonbelievers? Message 517

---

double postEdited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I know you are going to scold me for quoting another author rather than telling my side in my own words, but this is how I learn. I read the commentary, evaluate the arguments made by others, and decide whether or not I would agree with them or not.First, the author:

quote:

---

Cameron B. R. Howard, associate professor of Old Testament, joined the Luther Seminary faculty in July 2012. She previously held visiting appointments at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta (2011-12) and at the School of Theology at Sewanee, the University of the South (2010-11). She has also served as an adjunct faculty member at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology and at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga.

​

Howard received the Bachelor of Arts degree cum laude with honors in religion from Davidson College, where she was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. She holds the Master of Theological Studies degree from Candler School of Theology and the Master of Theology degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. She received her Ph.D. from Emory University in 2010. Howard is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature.

---

Next, her article on the whole genesis/snake/God lies thing:

quote:

---

Who tells the truth in this story: God or the serpent?

​

God says to Adam, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die (2:16-17). Yet when Adam and Eve eat it, they do not die. So, did God lie? Did God offer up an alternative fact? Did God tell all the truth, but tell it slant? Was God simply wrong?

​

The serpent -- who is only presented as an animal in the story, not as Satan -- says to Eve, Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden? (3:1) We and Adam (and apparently Eve, too, though she was not yet formed when God gave the command) know that this is not at all what God said. Does the serpent also know this? We have several reasons to think it does. First, the narrator calls the serpent crafty or shrewd, implying the animal is not simply making casual conversation. Second, the serpent is indeed correct about the outcome of the humans’ snack. The snake promises that once they eat the fruit, their eyes will be opened; they will see and know. This is precisely what occurs in verse 7: their eyes are opened, and they know they are naked.

​

The serpent also promises that Eve and Adam will become like gods, ones who know good and evil (3:5).2 This outcome is not immediately confirmed in the text; however, at Genesis 3:22, God declares that the humans have indeed become like us, knowing good and evil, fueling God’s expulsion of the humans from the garden. Thus, the snake seems to have a lot of correct information about the garden’s trees and the consequences of eating from them -- information that God either did not know or did not reveal to the humans. The serpent’s question to Eve is not exactly a lie, but in its craftiness the serpent does appear to be setting up these humans, or God, or both, for a confrontation.

​

In an era when fake news proliferates, many of us crave some straightforward answers, especially to our most deeply held questions of faith. But this text is a stark reminder that Scripture does not always provide answers, or much of anything straightforward. If we come to this story believing that God exhibits all the omni-categories -- omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent -- then the story is going to challenge some of those assumptions. Does the snake know more than God? Is the snake more of a truth-teller than God? Those questions jar us, if we allow ourselves to ask them. Yet asking those difficult questions is one of the ways we come to glimpse the fullness of who God is, and how we might live our own lives faithfully.

​

In her essay The Soil That Is Scripture, Ellen Davis advocates reading the Bible with the virtues of humility, charity, and patience. She describes a patient reading of Scripture as akin to reading poetry, ... slowing down to ponder each phrase, to wonder why this word was chosen and not another, how this line or paragraph or story builds on what precedes and leads into what follows.3 The story of the garden is a wonderful place to practice this discipline of reading with patience. We tend to read and preach this story as if it is about one topic alone: sin. Sin is indeed a critical theme for Genesis 2-3, and I commend to you the many excellent evaluations of the topic in other commentaries.4 But this text also presents an opportunity to reflect not just on particular theological themes, but also on the sheer art of biblical storytelling.

​

Seeing and knowing are key words throughout the text. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit, their eyes are opened and they understand that they are naked, as discussed above. But even before partaking of the fruit, and after conversing with the serpent, Eve can see new things: that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise (3:6). The encounter with this strange animal is already revelatory on its own. The story also connects the humans and the serpent via word choice; the word for crafty (‘arum), describing the serpent (3:1), is a pun on the word for naked (‘arummim), describing the humans (2:25). These are just a few of the elements of literary craft that reading the story patiently reveals.

​

Scripture continually challenges our presumptions about the Creator and creation alike. Every time we think we have a story figured out, something new will jump out, or our presumptions will be met with counter-testimonies. It can be difficult to bring fresh eyes to texts that are so familiar, and that are so freighted with hundreds of years’ worth of interpretation. Within the story-world of Genesis 2-3, the relationship of both God and the serpent to the truth is ambiguous. I do not ultimately think either God or the serpent is a liar, despite the discrepancies in each character’s speech. And yet, we must be willing to wrestle with those types of jarring questions, or else risk missing the newness, wonder, and possibility that listening to and for God’s word can bring.

​

The Bible is not the place to go if you want, like Joe Friday in the old TV show Dragnet, just the facts, ma’am. The Bible is not a collection of facts. It is a collection of stories, poems, songs, prayers, and remembrances. It invites us to dwell over its details, revel in its beauty, and reflect on its difficult questions. The wonder of biblical storytelling is itself worthy of proclamation.5 In the Dickinson poem quoted at the beginning of this commentary, telling the truth slant is not advocacy for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of our neighbors. Instead, Dickinson describes Truth -- with a capital T -- as so dazzling that we must receive it gradually, or else be blinded by its grandeur. Perhaps this is why Scripture is often such a puzzle; the fullness of God’s Truth is too much to chew in one bite.

---

And you need to demonstrate that you have learned by repeating the argument in your own words.

You're halfway there.

And yet you even underline the very Carny Snake-Oil spiel in that article and fail to understand or even acknowledge the hedging and fudging and tap dance to avoid reality it demonstrates.

quote:

---

Within the story-world of Genesis 2-3, the relationship of both God and the serpent to the truth is ambiguous. I do not ultimately think either God or the serpent is a liar, despite the discrepancies in each character’s speech. And yet, we must be willing to wrestle with those types of jarring questions, or else risk missing the newness, wonder, and possibility that listening to and for God’s word can bring.

---

Nonsense. Your author makes a claim that is simply not supported by the actual evidence. And what are the tap dance steps required? Simple. Claim ambiguity; don't demonstrate it just claim it. The audience is trained to just accept that and will not even notice you palming the pea.True, as others have said Genesis 2&3 is just a story. But we need to accept the story as it was written and not pretend it is ambiguous.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

Yes but the LORD penetrates the entire universe and surrounds every one of us and is NOT a human being and is NOT on the level of a human being and is NOT in proportion with a human being, and that is how these passages get scarily misread. They are written to explain some of God's actions but you are misreading them as if God was just like us. God's wrath and vengeance are aimed against human actions that are so contrary to the nature of God, so attached to false gods of all sorts, that He MUST act AGAINST us. Trivializing this is scary. But I guess nothing I say is going to make any kind of difference. People are going to go on talking about God as if he's a disagreeable troll instead of the power that runs everything and cannot do anything that is not righteous, and eventually we human "gods" who dare to judge our Maker are going to be destroyed by Him because that is the nature of spiritual reality.

Ironically, you portray God as the same petty tyrant that you say He isn't. Why would He be FORCED to act against us? If He is so far beyond our understanding, why would He even notice us?

This is at least true. Religious waffle. It's a simple folk tale. These people spout such utter crap. It's not a puzzle, it's a couple of variations on a simple folk tale no different to thousands of others. It holds no more beauty, insight and relevance than any other simple story.The only puzzle it contains is why so many people think it's history.Take that red pill and tell me it's not just myth - if you read it not having been indoctrinated into your religion, you'd think it childish.

Well, that was predictable. I guess there is nothing I can say that won't be made into that sort of misreading. God has to act righteously, He always has to do the most righteous thing. That can include wrath against malefactors and lawbreakers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have the typical arrogance to dismiss a learned theologian as a carny huckster when you yourself couldnt even finish college! Where are your credentials apart from creating God in the image that YOU want?

I posted my reasoning which I see as expected you did not address. But then you also had to once again misrepresent what I have said and posted.Avoidance and misrepresentation may make a successful Apologist but they will not fly here.I do not and have not said that I have a clue what God is like and in fact know of no way while I am still living to determine what God is like. But I can report what authors have described as the characteristics of God and so that is what I do.Why is it you have NEVER responded to the evidence I or anyone else has ever posted but just always resort to misrepresentation and avoidance?

And yet you and jar can market and support a story about a God Who lies? Absolute blasphemy! It does not take a rocket scientist to know that God cannot lie. But of course, you will come up with some excuse or another of why my quote from the book does not contradict your insistence that the god "character" lied. I find many instances where other Theologians describe the belief that they were taught regarding those passages. Its easy to cry that every single Theologian who doesn't see it your way is dishonest. Clearly neither one of you can do anything but stand on the premise. I think its because you want the idea that Genesis is simply written by humans and that these humans wanted the god character they invented to lie. You have attempted to trash the idea that God exists outside of the book characters and portrayals. You basically argue the side of evil, here. You reduce the character of God to human creation and then defend that premise, accusing Christians themselves of ignoring the message of the book---a book in which according to you, God is simply a human evolved plot device. I dismiss your assertions as well as jars based on an argument from popularity. Who am I going to believe? Professionals or armchair skeptics and critics of organized religion?