Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xeoncross | Hacker News Reader

Such a sad story.

> "The voice said in this very biblical, Old Testament, angry way"

Is this what people consider "biblical"? An angry person? I've spent years reading the Pentateuch, writings, and new testament and I don't see this voice (I assume she means "God") as angry at all.

Quite the opposite actually, as the narrative is [to the Jews] about God restoring them despite their rebellion and sin and [to the Christians] about God giving us his son despite our hatred and sin.

> "Then about 10 years ago I went to Israel on a trip. I'm Jewish and I went with my rabbi and other people from the temple that I belonged to. While I was there I took a Hebrew name, Bracha, which means blessing."

I assume this "voice" was the guilt that plagued her creeping into anything that mattered. It's sad the torment that we can inflict onto our own minds. It sounds like she was able to overcome it.

View on HN

Well, half the Old Testament is one tribe murdering another, and God either doesn't care, or support one side (usually the victorious one - if it's Jews it's because they were nice, if it's not Jews it's because Jews were sinful at that particular moment :) ).

He tells Saul (if I remember correctly) to murder subjugated people, women and children included, so at that moment to any sane person God is actually acting as a force of evil, corrupting the believers, who wanted to save them (for a life of slavery most probably, but still, better than murder).

He makes a bet with the devil over Hiob's life, and kills his entire family (or allows it to be killed, same thing) just to see that Hiob's indeed faithful (which he knew beforehand because he's omniscient, but whatever).

God of Old Testament even calls itself "jealous", and tells people he "punishes sins of ancestors on X generations" (3 or 4 if I remember correctly).

Kinda angry and evil, isn't it?

> half the Old Testament is one tribe murdering another

That hasn't changed, it's only gotten worse. A huge percentage of this world kills, riots, and is violent. Is God supposed to handcuff everyone?

God's primary purpose isn't to keep everyone safe in a little sealed box where they can't hurt anything. However, one day he will put an end to to sin and evil once and for all. The reason he doesn't is that he continues to extend mercy to as many people as he knows will take it before that time comes.

(Also, tribe is the wrong word. Many of these countries/civilizations had millions of people in them with wars being fought between armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.)

A huge percentage? I reckon the vast majority of individual people alive today are pretty peaceful.

God's primary purpose is as a tool for the religious ruling elite to exert control over the followers. Do Man's desires align with God's will, or does God's will conveniently align with Man's desires? Seems we always have only Man's word on the matter.

It is impossible for men to have written the bible. It was written over ~1,500 years by about 40 different people across multiple empires and contents - yet it's unified in the story. It's over 20% prophecy, much of which was has already come to pass about nations or events (some of which features Israel).

There is no book that even comes close to the complexity required for the bible to have been written.

> It is impossible for men to have written the bible.

That's quite the claim, since historical evidence sure seems to show every known biblical text was scribed by human hands.

> yet it's unified in the story

That's certainly open to interpretation, to say the least. Many of the story elements and arcs can be found in cultures that pre-date Christ.

> much of which was has already come to pass about nations or events

Over thousands of years one can find examples for any broad prophecy.

Once again we're left with nothing authoritative on the matter except the word of Man, that we're apparently expected to take on faith alone.

> show every known biblical text was scribed by human hands

Yes, the bible itself claims this (2 Peter 1:21). I was referring to men coming up with the idea and colluding over a millennia.

> Many of the story elements and arcs can be found in cultures that pre-date Christ.

That is because everything in the New Testament (including Christ's life) was an extension of what had already be told for thousands of years earlier.

> Over thousands of years one can find examples for any broad prophecy.

These aren't broad prophecies. They are specific accounts of events such as the destruction method of Tarshish by a Greek commander (Alexander the great) or the name of a future Persian King who would command the rebuilding of the temple (Darius the Persian) or the return of Israel as a nation after Daniels 69 weeks had elapsed, etc...

The most extensive prophecies are focused on Jesus himself and what he would do and how he would die (Isaiah 53, etc..).

> I was referring to men coming up with the idea and colluding over a millennia.

How do you reconcile with the fact that there are hundreds of texts and stories that have selectively excluded by human hands to create what we today call the bible?

If my priest gives me a bible and tells me "This is the word of God", but admits that over the last 2000 years there have been several councils were certain texts and stories were added and removed, and that archaeologists have found previously unknown gospels not included in the bible, what am I supposed to think?

I am afraid the sheer volume of research on the topic of the canon of scripture is more than I'll ever be able to consume. There are hundreds of books and videos on the subject. If you are really curious then you should probably check them all out. icr.org, carm.org, gotquestions.org, etc...

I'll add that we have thousands of copies and fragments of the bible with nothing more than small changes in spelling. If anything was changed, we would know from the differences in the copies (unless every nation all colluded to have the same bible from day one). In fact, even the Jews would have to have been in on it even though they deny Jesus is their Messiah. (See the dead sea scrolls)

I only know of one "council" where they "decided" on what was in the bible. The Council of Nicea, where they affirmed what was already accepted as canon.

Is there any proof these prophecies were written before the events occurred? The simplest explanation is that they were written after the events then pointed to as prophecies to prove the texts are prophetic. That would align very well with what we know about the world and the deceit Man is perfectly capable of.

While many people collectively editing and revising a text over millennia is certainly impressive, there is nothing impossible about it nor is it on its own proof of anything supernatural.

Yes, that's a common explanation. https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/w...

That doesn't really answer anything. I'm not debating that Jesus existed. But using the Bible as evidence for the Bible doesn't hold water.

More than 99% of all people alive today never murdered anyone, nor participated in any war. Slavery is very rare. In most of the world there are at least partly objective court system, with the possibility to appeal.

In what way exactly things got worse according to you?

And the important thing about Old Testament is - it portraits wars of Jewish states/tribes as either having the support of the God (because they were doing what God said to them, so they deserve to enslave/kill the pagans and take their land), or going against the God and thus - losing (so the pagans got the support of the God in the murdering or enslaving the Jews as a punishment).

God's purpose is whatever he chooses, but if you do such things you aren't "good" and "loving". You're basically playing Starcraft with people as units. It's evil.

>> Is this what people consider "biblical"? An angry person? I've spent years reading the Pentateuch, writings, and new testament...

No, it's the old testament god. The one who punished Adam and Eve, the one who decided humanity was such a disgrace he flooded the world to purge them - that angry god.

Is God not able to try and judge people just as we do? If someone murders another, humanity has long believed it ok to imprison or execute them for their crimes. I fail to see how an all-knowing God is not qualified to make the same judgement.

> "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.. ...and the earth was filled with violence. - Genesis 6:5-11

That aside, there are more as many acts of mercy in these stories than judgement. The idea of an "Old Testament God" and "New Testament God" is rejected by all the Jews and Christians I know.

The New Testament is rejected by most Jews. Yet, even without this "merciful God" of the NT, we can see from the Old Testament writings that they regard God as one whos' "Loving kindness and mercy endures forever".

God is omnipotent, he could save these murdered by others. Instead he chose to let them be murdered and then punish these that did the murder. And then also to punish their kids and grandkids.

The funny thing is - most modern people are more ethical, than Old Testament's God.

You wouldn't kill your children if they decided to become hippies, or to burn your house. And you certainly wouldn't kill their children, etc.

And yeah, most Christians believe the God is the same. But the behaviour described in the books changed drastically.

> The idea of an "Old Testament God" and "New Testament God" is rejected by all the Jews and Christians I know.

How many Jews and Christians do you know? How many theologians do you know?

I could just as easily state that it is abundantly clear that the Old Testament and the New Testament are written by completely different people at completely different points in time.

Are you saying that all acts of cruelty by God in the OT are acts of judgement? And what kind of judgement is that? The story about Sodom and Gomorrah basically tells us that:

A) Any kind of sin can be punishable by death. B) Collective punishment is OK, including innocent men, women and children.

> Any kind of sin can be punishable by death

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23

You don't see sin as a big deal, but God does.

> including innocent men, women and children

That's the problem. What innocent people? All of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing some really, really bad things like burning children alive and torturing people.

> And the LORD said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. “I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD. Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? “Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.”... ...Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” - Genesis 18:20-32

> The idea of an "Old Testament God" and "New Testament God" is rejected by all the Jews and Christians I know.

Jews reject the New Testament entirely; Christians are the ones who came up with the distinction (which doesn't distinguish different actual gods but either different human understanding of God or different stages on God's relationship with humanity.)

Well, there's also (some subset of) Gnostics, who viewed them as literally different gods, and identified the OT God with the evil(-ish, at least) demiurge. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Or the one who destroyed Job's life to win a bet with Satan. Or cursed the people of Babel. Or summarily executed all of Sodom and Gomorrah.

To be clear, there's a lot more to God in the Old Testament than anger, even in those instances. There's grief, especially in the flood, and in the case of Adam and Eve, God provided for their nakedness with better clothes then they had made.

To say nothing of the promise and provision provided to nations throughout the Old Testament, the grace given to non-Israelites by keeping them from accidentally violating the marriages of Abram and Issac when both men lied about their wives out of fear.

Remembering only the anger of God in the Old Testament is a common, but incomplete reading. There is also grace there.

>Remembering only the anger of God in the Old Testament is a common, but incomplete reading. There is also grace there.

If someone murders another person, we don't immediately start to list out their virtues (He donated to the poor, he was a good father etc.) It is not enough for God to have done "good things", he must also have not done "bad things".

The bar for an omnipotent, all-powerful God should be higher than it is for a fallible human being, but you appear to have lowered it.

I don't believe God's anger and wrath in the Old or New testaments to have been unrighteous or wrong. There's a lot more discussion there than I have time for right now, however. Perhaps we can resume this discussion at a later date elsewhere.

> If someone murders another person, we don't immediately start to list out their virtues.

Tell that to the media.

Is this what people consider "biblical"? An angry person?

Ever heard the expression hellfire and brimstone preacher? A lot of people are exposed to the Bible in pretty negative terms.

No, it's just the subtle, typical, anti-religious bigotry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com