Statuses

Book Plunge: Obsessed with Blood Part 3

What about the Exodus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

(I normally would write on Monday-Friday, but yesterday, I had a really bad stomach bug and was out of action. Writing today instead.)

So we start here with talk about the Exodus and how there’s no evidence of it happening. Of course, we’re not told what kind of evidence a group wandering in the desert for just 40 years building no long-term residences is supposed to leave behind. I’m also not sure what this has to do with being obsessed with blood, but that’s atheists for you.

Baker then talks about how God left His people in slavery for 400 years. Yes. And? God owed getting them out sooner? Perhaps they needed to be a more numerous people so they could retake the land and so they could avoid being overcome by enemies in the wilderness? Objections based on evil always seem to go “I can’t think of a good reason why God would do this, therefore God doesn’t exist.”

He talks about how God apparently couldn’t figure out who was loyal to Him and who wasn’t. He needed to see blood on their doorframes. However, a person from an ancient culture would naturally think that if you really were committed to your deity, you would do that by an action. “Yes. I believe God will judge the wicked and save His people, but I just don’t care to paint my doorframe.”

The next chapter is about sin and he gives the story about meeting a girl he wants to marry and says “Suppose I say you can either marry me or I will throw you into a fire and burn you forever and ever.” So many atheists share this as if this is an accurate picture. It’s more the case of “Suppose you are on death row and I give you a free pardon if you will be loyal to me and serve me? Do you take it?” The objection assumes that people are innocent, when just turning on the nightly news will show that we are not.

He then says the Bible takes this further saying that all those who have never heard the good news by default are condemned to Hell.

Strange. There’s no citation for that. Well, maybe it’s not that strange. I have my own thoughts on that here.

He also tells us that Noah had a menage a trois with his daughters. He says it’s funny how God didn’t figure this would happen. What’s even more funny is I don’t remember that happening at all in the story. There’s not even mention I know of of Noah having daughters.

Now you could say he is talking about Lot and his daughters, but that’s part of the problem. If I can’t trust Baker to do his research on something that is so basic and simple as this, why should I trust him with other stuff that I can’t check? Also, the story is recorded. There’s no indication God did not know it would happen, and it is an indication of how depraved Lot’s daughters had become in Sodom.

The next chapter is long, so we’ll save that for another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Are Women Property?

Does the commandment on coveting treat women as property? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let’s suppose there was a translation of the Bible made that took the passages that were general and yet used the male to speak to the people. Instead, this translation used she and her and spoke of a husband instead of a wife. Now let’s suppose we went to the Ten Commandments in this Bible. What would we see?

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s husband, nor her male servant nor her female servant, nor her ox, nor her donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

Would I read this and think that if I was married, that this would mean that I am my wife’s property. No. I would take it to mean that my wife has a husband and I am that husband and no other woman is to covet me. It’s not really offensive at all.

But so many people who come at the Bible with an axe to grind want to make everything in there offensive. Therefore, the Bible apparently lists a woman as property. After all, it mentions a man’s wife and then it mentions other things that he owns. Thus, the conclusion is that a wife is just another thing that a man owns.

Why should anyone think this? We can often go to a man and ask him about his wife or ask a woman about her husband. Would the same apply if we spoke of their kids or of their pets?

Why is this coveting condemned? Coveting is condemned because it leads to envy, and envy is a breeding ground for many other sins. I want what someone else has. Now the right response to this is to say “Therefore, I’m going to work hard and do what it takes to get what they have.” Of course, you can’t get their wife, but you can get a wife.

The rabbis did take coveting seriously. Coveting was said to be the sin that led to the fall of man. If Paul knew about this, that would explain why he spoke of not coveting in Romans 7. (Also, I don’t think Paul is giving his personal testimony. I think he’s speaking in the person of Adam.) Because Adam and Eve saw something that they wanted and wanted on their own terms, humanity fell. (Remember, advertising is the world’s oldest profession truly. See this fruit? You need it to be happy!)

So really, I don’t see anything here, but I did want to include it in the case of being thorough. Instead, internet atheists need to find something really worthwhile to deal with. Perhaps instead of critiquing the commandment so much, they could consider it seriously. They might think it’s a stretch to say that coveting leads to the fall of man, but what damage does it do to society to covet today? Wouldn’t that be a better area to focus on?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)