Bible verse by verse

[_Bret Ripley]

The question is not were there Israelites who believed God to be married --- the questions are, were they correct

Those who thought so eventually lost that theological argument, if that's what you mean (and I'm guessing you don't).

and does the Bible teach this?

Those who are responsible for the Bible as we know it won that theological argument, if that's what you mean (and I'm guessing you don't).

If you want to overcome your confusion regarding the nature of the conversation, try to understand that your blinkered approach to these questions is irrelevant to what maklelan is saying. And I'm guessing you don't.

[_LittleNipper]

The question is not were there Israelites who believed God to be married --- the questions are, were they correct

Those who thought so eventually lost that theological argument, if that's what you mean (and I'm guessing you don't).

and does the Bible teach this?

Those who are responsible for the Bible as we know it won that theological argument, if that's what you mean (and I'm guessing you don't).

If you want to overcome your confusion regarding the nature of the conversation, try to understand that your blinkered approach to these questions is irrelevant to what maklelan is saying. And I'm guessing you don't.

Maklelan isn't a Christian in the Biblical sense --- not that it matters to him since he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway... My approach is not that of my own design, as I didn't write the book. As for blinders ------------------- is that in believing in anything but the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

[_Bret Ripley]

As for blinders ------------------- is that in believing in anything but the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

Neither. It's in equating statements about the historical record (e.g. "evidence indicates that ancient Israelites believed YHWH had a consort and commanded human sacrifice") with personal belief (e.g. "MDB Poster X personally believes YHWH has/had a consort and commanded human sacrifice").

For example:

This lady is a self proclaimed atheist who believes that God had a wife.

Dr. Stavrakopoulou does not personally believe that God had a wife -- which should be obvious as she is an atheist. She believes that ancient Israelites believed God had a wife, which is indisputably true and she is completely correct to point it out. You have done the same with maklelan in instances where he has expressed what is found in the historical record, and you have mistakenly equated it with what he personally believes to be true. It is this tendency that I referred to as a blinkered approach.

[_ludwigm]

Maklelan isn't a Christian in the Biblical sense ---

Why should You (or anybody) categorize other people by their religion - nationality, colour, party commitment or whatever?

I categorize people by their deeds. Do they something which is good or bad for their environment? Especially for me?

Here in MDB, and in the blogosphere one can not know the other's deeds. Only their words.
My assumption - should I call it presurmise? - that their deeds and words are in harmony.

I don't care if Maklelan is buddhist or if You are satanist.
I see only the words.

Maklelan knows what does he talking about (writing, in this case).
And --- to quote a classic, Bret Ripley, see above --- I'm guessing you don't.

--- not that it matters to him since he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway.

What does "believing in the Bible" mean?

The Bible is a book. A text. One can read it, memorize it, cite it, evaluate it the same way as ANY OTHER TEXT.

Believe in it? What to believe?
I should not believe what does and what doesn't say that book. I can read, then I will know what words are used and what aren't.

Believe that it is word of (any) god? This is another issue...

[_maklelan]

Abraham did not assume God had a wife. Isaac did not. Jacob did not. Joseph did not. Moses did not.

Actually whatever historical figures underlie the traditions preserved in the text absolutely believed God had a wife. No one anywhere in Israel thought otherwise until around 700 BCE, and it took around 500 years for it to take strong hold even then.

Ahab more than likely did. Jezebel probably did (she might even have believed god to be a woman). Jeroboam is likely another. The question is who is on the LORD's side and not if you are right or not.

No, the question there is what the Deuteronomist's rhetorical goals were.

The Israelites made a golden calf

And the bull was YHWH's pedestal animal. No one thought there was a problem with bulls until the Deuteronomists tried to consolidate power in Judah and vilified the shrines of the Northern Kingdoms.

So, do you believe that God looks like a cow?

Do you believer he looks like a cross?

People believe stupid things in ancient times.

People still believe stupid things today. Did you know there are people who think the Bible is inerrant?

We only have to consider the Mormons, and the Moonies, and Scientologist to realize that thing are no different today.

So talking donkeys and 6,000 year-old earths are just self-evident?

The question is not were there Israelites who believed God to be married --- the questions are, were they correct and does the Bible teach this?

No, those aren't the questions. You're exalting the messenger over the message. The Bible is just a text. Once you say it's more important what the Bible says than what's true, you've thrown everything out the window just to deify your Bible. That's sick.

Clearly, the Jews were punished again and again for their unfaithfulness. And then they were dispersed. Are they more faithful today? I do believe some are but certainly not all and likely not most. And faithful to what?

Well, they don't exalt faithfulness to the Bible over all else, including the truth. You've evidently turned the Bible into your God.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan isn't a Christian in the Biblical sense

Neither are you. I think what you mean to say is that I'm not a Christian in the fundamentalist sense, and I couldn't care less about that.

not that it matters to him since he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway... My approach is not that of my own design, as I didn't write the book. As for blinders ------------------- is that in believing in anything but the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

That last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

[_Gunnar]

Maklelan isn't a Christian in the Biblical sense

Neither are you. I think what you mean to say is that I'm not a Christian in the fundamentalist sense, and I couldn't care less about that.

not that it matters to him since he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway... My approach is not that of my own design, as I didn't write the book. As for blinders ------------------- is that in believing in anything but the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

That last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Agreed! Failure to see just how nonsensical that sentence is, definitely requires blinders. Insisting that the Bible or any other ancient scripture is necessarily inerrant also requires blinders. No one on this forum (or anyone else I know of) claims or believes that anything but the Bible is inerrant. There are obviously extra Biblical sources that are even more error prone than the Bible itself.

Nevertheless, there is absolutely no rational or valid basis for assuming a priori that the Bible is any less the product of fallible human beings than anything else that has ever been written, while there is much more than ample justification for concluding that the Bible is very far from inerrant. I doubt that even the original authors of the books in the Bible seriously believed that what they wrote was necessarily inerrant, though it is possible that at least a few of them wanted their readers to believe so.

[_huckelberry]

As for blinders ------------------- is that in believing in anything but the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

That last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

I believe Nippers is intending a comparison. For whom is having blinders on a better description, himself believing in the inerrancy of the Bible or Maklelan believing in anything but the Bible?

The intended humor might come through better if Maklelan fit the phrase a bit better. Maklelan naturally would entrirely reject that he fits , but fitting may well be what Little Nipper sees.

[_Gunnar]

I believe Nippers is intending a comparison. For whom is having blinders on a better description, himself believing in the inerrancy of the Bible or Maklelan believing in anything but the Bible?

The intended humor might come through better if Maklelan fit the phrase a bit better. Maklelan naturally would entrirely reject that he fits , but fitting may well be what Little Nipper sees.

Obviously that's what LittleNipper intended. It is still nonsensical. He seems to be trying to imply that Maklelan accepts that anything that is extra Biblical is inerrant, which is a gross, dishonest and insulting mis-characterization of Maklelan. Maklelan's position is obviously that no claims, whether Biblical or extra Biblical, are entitled to be exempted from critical and skeptical, but honest scrutiny. This is a far more admirable and honest approach to learning than that of LittleNipper. Unlike LittleNipper, Maklelan is willing to entertain the possibility that even his own convictions are not necessarily inerrant, and is amenable to changing them if (but only if) the evidence warrants it.

You and Roger, I think, have far more in common with Maklelan both integrity wise and humility wise than with LittleNipper. You are both a credit to Christianity, and if all Christians were like you, this world would be a much better place!

[Guest]

Maklelan isn't a Christian in the Biblical sense

Neither are you. I think what you mean to say is that I'm not a Christian in the fundamentalist sense, and I couldn't care less about that.

not that it matters to him since he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway... My approach is not that of my own design, as I didn't write the book. As for blinders ------------------- is that in not believing in anything apart from the Bible or in believing the Bible is inerrant...

That last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

I am a Christian in the biblical sense because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that other books are the works of men. Salvation is ONLY through believing that Jesus is one's personal Savior. There are no other ways to come to God. The last sentence means that I do not hold the efforts of others in a higher regard than the Bible. The Bible comes first and anything that disagrees with the Bible is in error. I guess that does place blinders on me. I let God deal with the dangers along the side of the road. God expects me to keep my eyes on Christ and listen to Him through reading His Word.