Gospel Editing Precludes Divine Inspiration

[steve]

Brenden,

My actual words, bringing Marcion into the discussion, were (to psimmond) "You have fallen into one of the chief errors of Marcion." This error is in thinking the standards of the Old Testament God are not consistent with the Father of Jesus. It is only one error of Marcion. I was careful to avoid equating his positoon with Marcionism.

The law said "marry". Why do you keep calling it "rape"?

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

I didn't. I said that the practice of warriors, past and present, was to take spoils of war, and those spoils included raping women, especially young virgins. I see the provision for this kind of marriage as a concession, much as Jesus called divorce a "concession." The Israelite soldiers could not rape the virgins, but they could marry them. They could then dismiss them if they found no favor in their eyes. Given the prevalence of divorce on "every sort of ground", I do not think it a stretch to imagine that the Israelite soldiers that took such "battlefield wives" put them out more often then once in a blue moon. I feel no more need to defend this concession in the Law than Jesus did to defend dthe divorce concession.

@Dizerner,

That is a noble sentiment. But there is nothing in the record of the nation of Israel that fills me with such confidence.

Exo 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.
Neh 9:16 "But they and our fathers acted presumptuously and stiffened their neck and did not obey your commandments.
Act 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
1Co 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Num 25:1 While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. . . .

This kind of description and history is chock full in the OT record. I see no compelliong evidence to 'assume the soldiers would [not] be lascivious about it and treat the girls with any respect.'

Regards Brenden.

[dizerner]

This kind of description and history is chock full in the OT record. I see no compelliong evidence to 'assume the soldiers would [not] be lascivious about it and treat the girls with any respect.'

I mean you talk about "compelling" evidence but the evidence you supplied sure didn't compel me . Do you think not a single one of them had any ethic at all, even if they suffered from a sin nature as we all do? Because God may have said some barbaric things, but they definitely could have been a lot worse, and what matters really is the spirit and heart behind it. It was a barbaric time, and no one living in the time would have batted an eye reading the account. But what I think really happens is more people reading their own spin into it, quite a bit. It sure doesn't have God saying "rape them all as much as you want and throw away any you don't like," yet you'd think this was the verbatim holy writ the way some people talk. Nor does it say "this is God's best and highest will realized in Jesus Christ." You really can't make any headway with that level of spin, there is no desire for truth. I've met it countless times.

Seems kind of irrelevant to me though since everyone here rejecting Moses rejects at least half of what Jesus says too. To be honest I don't really know why they "hang around" Holy Scriptures at all when they are in essence secular humanists, just taking a few bits about loving your neighbor and throwing most of it out. That's pretty apparent though. There's no salvation by do-goodism and moralistic behavior, because it hides the real sinful nature of our hearts.

bless!

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I don't know what to say. You may want to do some reading as to the practice of divorce and adultery in the Jewish culture in the 1st century. It may put a new "spin" on Jesus' words "A wicked and adulterous generation." I am not saying that the nation of Israel was full of degenerates. What I am saying is you can't read the history of the nation as laid out in the Scriptures, and the complaints the prophets brought against them, and not see that they were pretty checkered, to say the least. If you would like, I'll draft a list of verse that may "compel" you more.

The provision we are discussing in the Law is probably the best of all possible naturalistic solutions to the issue of what to do with the surviving women. But even the best of all natural solutions will have it's share of difficulties. The Jews were very apt at finding ways around the spirit of the Law by strict adherence to the letter. I can envision the "ugly" virgins forced into a life of harlotry, for example. I can see the warriors that took the attractive ones as wives, being ostracized because of taking foreign wives, and the pressure from that causing them to put them out. I guess I just see it as a law of necessity and a provision of allowance, rather than a lofty principle to be defended. I certainly fail to see any reason to object it's being thought of that way. As for Moses; It's true that some reject Moses outright and only accept a fraction of what Jesus says. But I am unaware of any "here" that do that.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Ninety-nine percent is a fraction. There are some here who accept a much smaller fraction. That is what is being discussed here, as near as I can tell.