Re: An inadequate response

From: J Burgeson (
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 12:02:00 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: Noahic Covenant"

    Bob Rogland appears to have missed my challenge in his rather lengthy
    response of July 12. I was, perhaps, not clear. Start with the SPECIFIC
    verses I quoted. Then respond to at least one or two these questions
    (somewhat expanded from my original post and they overlap somewhat):

    1. The Bible is, many say, a book of ethics. Is there any person here who
    would say that the advice above ought to be given today to our soldiers who
    fight abroad? If not, why not?

    2. Assuming you would not give that advice to our soldiers today, would you
    give it to the ancient Hebrew soldiers? If so, why the difference?

    My point here is that if we take the Bible to be a book of ethics, then we
    must understand how to read it -- for our time.

    3. What would you say to me, if I were your preacher, and, referring to this
    text, I claimed that these were God's Words and that therefore we ought to
    regard women today as property and advise our soldiers to follow those
    instructions? On what basis would you run me out of town?

    4. As I understand your position, you would not preach the above, but you
    WOULD preach that these were God's Words for those days and that therefore
    women WERE property in those days and that God not only condoned that but
    commanded it and that the soldiers of that day WERE to follow those
    instructions and that God approved of their actions. Do I understand you

    I think that position is balderdash. It posits a God who has a morally
    deficient position at one time and a different one today.

    5. The advice given above assumes that women are property. Is this an
    ethical stance anyone here would take today? Should women be regarded as
    property? If not, why not? Does God (today) regard women as second class
    persons? Did he so regard them at the time Moses made this speech?

    6. The advice given above says to a young man that it is OK to capture a
    young woman, forcibly rape her, and then, if she does not satisfy, turn
    her loose. Your position is that God approved of this, at least at that
    time. I assume you do not think it would be approved (by God) today. When
    did he change his mind?

    One more thing here. The question of inerrancy, infallibility, or "high view
    of scripture" does not come into this. The argument is the same even if one
    is a KJV-only person. It centers around how we interpret the sacred text. I
    have previously argued that Ps 137 makes perfect sense (to me) if it is
    taken as song sung by people mourning in exile. IOW, it does not "teach
    doctrine." I seriously doubt that any Psalms "teach doctrine," but that is
    not a claim but an opinion. That does not make PS 137 less inspired, or
    infallible, or even inerrant. It just identifies what it is.

    Likewise I claim that the Deu verses I posted record what Moses spoke (or
    what a writer of 1000 years later thought he spoke). That does not make the
    verses less inspired, etc. It simply identifies what they represent. To
    interpret them as "God's commands" to the ancient Hebrews denigrates God, by
    implying that either God has changed his mind since that time or, perhaps,
    the commands are for this day also.

    I do not think they are for this day.



    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 14:56:18 EDT