Biblical Literacy - 3

CAUTION: If you're start here this won't make much sense. Go here and read the entries in order.

I've gone through questions 1-10 of the quiz created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Now, here are questions 11-20.

-------------------------------------------

11. According to the bible, who created evil?
Answer: C - God.

Now we know who is to blame.

The word "create" above is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1:1. The word "evil" is ra, such as in Genesis 2:9, "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Some versions, such as the NIV, have unjustifiably softened the implications of this verse by translating ra as "disaster" or "calamity," although ra is used repeatedly throughout scripture to refer to moral evil. (See Isaiah 7:14-15: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil [ra], and choose the good.") But even if the "disaster" interpretation were allowable, the verse still depicts God as a troublemaker.

My Comments:

The question of evil is the most difficult question in the monotheistic religions. You can find a variety of answers in scripture including the idea that God is the creator of evil.

Could it be that God created evil as a kind of sadistic practical joke on humanity? This is the position of maltheism though the Bible itself never suggests that God either approves of nor rejoices in evil.

Could it be, as some theologians suggest, that evil is in some way a necessary part of creation? The movement known as process theology suggests that Creation is an ongoing process and that God continues to both guide and move the world toward a future in which evil will be no more. This and the liberation theology movement say that we are partners with God in working for a world where there is justice and peace for everyone.

The Bible never gives a reason for the existence of evil, but I find the process and liberation ideas much more helpful and think they give a much truer picture of the character of God than other ideas.


12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?

Answer: C - Repel chariots of iron.

So much for omnipotence.

My Comments:

This passage always makes me chuckle. There was no continuity editor working on the Bible and some of the authors had odd ideas.


13. According to the bible, where does God live?

Answer: B - In darkness.

How can the "God of light" live in darkness?

"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (I Kings 8:12. Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1) "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies." (II Samuel 22:12) "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."< (Psalm 18:11) "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him." (Psalm 97:1-2)

This contradicts I John 1:5: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all . . . If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."

My Comments:

This is true, though the contradiction is not nearly as strong as the FFRF suggests. Like many words, "darkness" has shadings of meaning. In the Old Testament passages cited, God "dwelling in darkness" is a poetic way of saying that God is beyond the sight of humans (IE, God is invisible). In the I John passage, "darkness" is used as a metaphor for evil and sin, which is a completely different use. I suspect the authors of these books would agree: God is invisible to human eyes but there is no place in God for evil and sin.


14. According to biblical biology, what is a bat?

Answer: A - A bird.

Biblical biology rates an 'F.' Bats are mammals, not birds. This is another good reason to keep bibles out of science classes.


My Comments:

For what it's worth, I agree completely about keeping Bibles out of science classes. The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a science text. It is a book filled with stories of fallible, faithful people coming to know their God. It is also colored by the pre-scientific views of those people. Whaddaya expect? Nobody in the ancient world knew about modern biological classifications.


15. According to biblical anatomy, where does thinking happen?

Answer: A - In the heart.

Biblical anatomy also rates an 'F.' The heart is an organ that pumps blood--it does not process thoughts, although the biblical writers erroneously thought it did. The word "brain" appears nowhere in the bible.

My Comments:

Those silly Hebrews! They should have checked with the Greek philosophers on that one. Those enlightened souls could have told them that the liver is the seat of reason.

:-)


16. How did Gideon demonstrate his family values?

Answer: C - He fathered 71 sons through many wives plus a mistress in Shechem.

So much for monogamy and fidelity. Is this how the hotel-bible Gideon Society expects us to demonstrate family values?

My Comments:

Yup, like Jacob, David, Solomon, and so many others, Gideon is not a model for ethical behavior. The idea that the heroes of the Bible were morally perfect and should serve as role-models for modern people is patently false. With a few notable exceptions, Bible heroes are deeply flawed people who succeed only through the grace of God.

The FFRF is correct on the second point also; the idea of a monogamous marriage exists in the Old Testament, but there is no moral judgment against men who have several wives and/or concubines. It's a part of that ancient culture that we are better off leaving behind. However, the fact that Gideon and others were total dogs as far as women went is a reflection of their time, not an indictment of God.


17. After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?

Answer: D - His virgin daughter.

Another example of family values from the "Good Book." Jephthah's nameless daughter is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God, who tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice.

The bible sanctions child sacrifice here. Notice how everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah's actions: there is no denunciation of this pointless murder from God, or from anyone in Jephthah's community, or from the biblical writers. It was the right thing to do.

The ultimate child sacrifice, of course, is the story of Jesus being put to death to appease the wrath of his offended father. Ruth Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible, puts it this way: "If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and worthy of society's admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?"

The biblical god often requested and accepted human sacrifice: "And he [God] said [to Abraham], Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." (Genesis 22:2) "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." (Exodus 22:29) "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land." (II Samuel 21:8-14) "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Hebrews 10:10-12)

My Comments:

The FFRF claims that the story of Jephthah is proof that the Bible sanctions human sacrifice. While it is a very disturbing story, it is more accurate to say that the Bible fails to comment on child sacrifice in this instance. Some scholars agree with the FFRF that God's silence in this story implies consent, but when the Bible does speak in Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:3, Deuteronomy 12:30-31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 it is always to condemn the practice.

Historians have a hard time saying much about child sacrifice in ancient Israel or even in the ancient Middle East as a whole. We are confidant that the practice existed but don't know how common or widespread it was.

The FFRF presents 4 scriptures to back up their claim that God often demanded and received child sacrifice; they deserve to be looked at individually.

1) The story of Jephthah is tragic and horrible. The story comes from a very primitive time in Israel's history and presents a violent and tribalistic understanding of God. Even taking the story by itself, Jephthah does not come across as an admirable character. He is a proud man who makes foolish promises and suffers as a result. The book of Judges is filled with similarly grim stories and reflects a savage time in Israel's history. Perhaps this best summed up by the last line of the book: In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges 21:25.)

2) The story of the Binding of Isaac is one of the most difficult to understand in the Bible. While the story has a happy ending, it begins on a terrible note as God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Jewish tradition suggests this was meant to be a symbolic sacrifice but Abraham mistook it for a literal one. Modern Christian scholarship points out that this seems to be a combination of two older stories. When Abraham is told to sacrifice his son, the name used for God is "Elohim" but the name changes to "Yahweh" when God stops Abraham. In his book Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature literary critic Erich Auerbach suggests that there is a buried struggle between the gods of sacrifice (represented by Elohim) and the God of mercy. in this story. This seems to be a shift in the theology of the Hebrew people, from understanding God as one who demands terrible sacrifices, to a deity who cares about all people.

3) The FFRF says that Exodus 22:29 implies human sacrifice was performed, but the scripture goes on to say how the firstborn can be redeemed from this fate. The impulse to sacrifice firstborn sons to the gods seems to go back to pre-Jewish traditions. The idea of saving the children by redeeming them is a first step away from this practice. There's a good discussion of this here.

4) Hebrews 10 is one of the key verses for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement which compares Jesus' death on the cross to an Old Testament blood sacrifice.

The FFRF's objections refelct the fact that many Christians take this symbolism literally and claim that God must be appeased by blood. The truth is that Jesus' dies because he loved people enough to put himself in harm's way for their sake. The writers of the New Testament had to help the people of their world understand this so they used a metaphor they would understand--the image of blood sacrifice.

As modern people, many centuries removed from this ritual, we need a different metaphor to understand. Let's look at another martyr, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Most believers would agree that he was one of the most Christ-like leaders of the tewitieth century. He risked, and lost, his life because his faith in God and his love for his fellow man compelled him to do so. While I'm not saying that Dr. King was another Christ, his personal sacrifice helps us to understand Jesus' sacrifice.

5) The story of David and the sons of Saul is a brutal one, but it is not the story of a religious sacrifice, it was a legal proceeding. Saul was guilty of genocidal raids against the Gibeonites, who should have been protected by a treaty. David went to the Gibeonites to ask how to atone for the damage the earlier king had done. Since Saul was dead they settled for executing seven of his grown sons.


18. What price did David pay King Saul for his first wife?

Answer: C - The foreskins of 200 Philistines.

David is supposed to be a biblical role model; but how does massacre and mutilation show moral leadership? What would Saul want with 200 foreskins? Possibly proof that his new son-in-law was a truly macho man for his daughter. (More likely, this reflects the pagan practice of offering foreskins as a rain/fertility ritual.)

My Comments:

This is pretty much accurate; the business with the foreskins is one of several gruesome traditions associated with warfare in the ancient Middle East. It's hardly unique to David, but there is no way to sugar coat it.

I do think the FFRF is missing the boat when they say that David is meant to be a role model, though. He is far from that, as anyone who has read his story knows. David was a very human mix of good and bad qualities and was rebuked by God on many occasions, notable in the story of Bathsheba and Uriah.


19. How many regular sexual partners did King Solomon have?

Answer: D - One thousand sexual partners.

At least one thousand. Another fine example of family values from one of God's favorites. "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." (I Kings 11:1-3)

Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, was praised by Jesus: "all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), "wisdom of Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to Solomon's greatness: "a greater than Solomon is here." (Luke 11:31)

My Comments:

I agree that Solomon is no role model. In addition to his many wives he allowed images of the gods his wives worshipped into the Temple, and instituted forced work-gangs to build the Temple and other public works. He was a brilliant diplomat and was revered for his intelligence but he wasn't much as a role-model.

Still, it's not accurate to say that God never denounces Solomon. If you read the full passage of 1 Kings 11:1-13 you see that God comes down hard on Solomon for just that. And Jesus' praise isn't high as the FFRF makes it out to be. When Jesus praised Solomon he wasn’t approving of his life style, he was saying he was a snappy dresser (Matthew 6:29) and a clever ruler (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31).


20. What happened to 42 little children who teased God's prophet Elisha for being bald and he cursed them in the name of the Lord?

Answer: C - Two bears came out of the forest and killed them all.

Note that this bloody execution for a childish prank is the work of the God of the bible. Is a person like this worthy of worship? Is this "pro-life"?

My Comments:

This is a strange and gruesome story that is at odds with the usually kind and quiet character of Elisha. It's also a great favorite of critics of the Bible for obvious reasons.

I've seen some commentators suggest that the phrase "little children" really indicates "young men" and that this a youth gang of considerable size. I don't know if this is the case or not, though even then it would be an ugly story.

I'll have to study this one in more detail and come back to it later. For now I'll just say that it's a strange incident that stands out because it is so different than the story surrounding it.