Print
Jesus, Galileo, and the Interpretation of Scripture
In “Slavery, Circumcision, and the Subordinate Role of Women,” I had considered adding a paragraph on the topic of the present article. It was intended to help us understand how we ought or ought not interpret Scripture. I chose to omit it because I felt it would be too brief to be helpful and that it might take away from the thrust of the article. But it is a topic that is closely related to that subject. I am expanding it now because of the comments raised with hopes that this might further help to explain the point of my article.
We need to be conscious always that the Bible was written about events covering thousands of years, in many different cultures and societies, and by various prophets and writers. There were periods of darkness and periods of light—that's how inspiration works.
The time of the flood was a lawless age. The Jews living as slaves in Egypt were not able to live the ideal Jewish life with their Sabbaths and lifestyle. The kind of laws they had before Sinai does not seem to have been clearly laid out or understood. The wilderness period was full of setbacks and apostasies. The period of the judges is well described by the last verse, Judges 21:25, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” The kingdom period had great apostasies and failures leading to the captivity of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians and later of Judah by the Babylonians. It is difficult for us to understand how they could apostatize to the point where they would worship images and fertility goddesses and partake in sexuality as part of religion. The period of the captivity was not conducive to great religious understanding. The return from captivity led to a return to the law with Ezra and Nehemiah but with the end of the prophetic period we have the intertestamental period when except for a short period Israel was again under the influence of pagan foreign powers, Greece and then Rome. God has to speak to people in these various cultures and situations and he uses prophets with various personalities and cultures with all their baggage.
We find as we study the people God used in the OT that they were flawed people like the rest of us. Noah became drunk, Moses was a murderer, Abraham was a prevaricator, Gideon distrusted God, and David committed adultery and murder.
God condescends to use earthen vessels to present himself to people and sometimes their limitations show in how they present God to us.
We should also keep in mind that there is development and understanding in scripture as time goes on. It is clear that sometimes people thought that if we did good, we would prosper and we did evil, we would suffer. But the book of Job set this straight that even the good suffer. It is clear there is development from the Old to the New Testament when the author of Hebrews writes, “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, ... “ (Heb 1:1-2). Christ’s priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood since it is of the order of Melchizedek which comes “not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). Development is also seen with the establishment of a new covenant (Heb 8). But the greatest development is the understanding of the work of Christ with regard to sin, “Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach. Otherwise, would they not have ceased being offered, since the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?” (Heb 10:1-3)
The fact that there is development shows that we cannot consider the Bible in regards to revelation as a flat or level plane—that is to say, we cannot just select any Scripture and consider it to be of the same value as any other passage from any place in the Bible. In the New Testament we have a better and clearer understanding of God’s plan.
What Solomon, David, and many others did does not mean that it is all right today. Because they sought blood revenge back then does not mean it is permissible today. Cities of refuge were set up so that accidental manslayers could find protection because blood revenge was practiced. We do not establish cities of refuge today. We’ve already mentioned slavery, circumcision, and the subordinate role of women in our previous article.
The greatest example of one who sees that what was valid in the past is not always valid was Jesus himself. In the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again anyone who says “Raca.” is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.’” Jesus is clearly saying that the morality of the Biblical past is insufficient for today.
The second thing that he elevates concerns adultery. It is not only necessary to avoid the actual physical act but one must not have the lust. The new morality goes beyond the act to the heart. He goes on to deal with divorce, oaths, an “eye for an eye” morality,” and loving our neighbor. Here we find that Jesus himself does not say that what is found in the Old Testament or previous practices are sufficient for his day and the future.
The greatest and most dramatic example that we need to move beyond the Bible in some things is the church’s encounter with Galileo. Richard Osborn sent me notes of a talk he has given in several places and contexts entitled, “The Case Against Galileo: Lessons for a 21st Century Church.” What he presents is germane to our topic and is included in our title, geocentricity. Here again the Bible was used (1 Chron 16:30; Josh 10:12-13; Ps 93:1) to support the position of those who opposed Galileo and Copernicus. We have to remember that the Bible was written in a pre-scientific period and that we should not use it to support ideas that are no longer valid as the church did in its conflict with Galileo. If we were living at the time of Galileo, it would have been difficult to go along with Galileo since the Bible was considered revelation and, therefore, a superior source than telescopes and scientific observation. Cardinal Bellarmine who was appointed to meet with Galileo responded, “Scripture is the immediately revealed word of God and was written as dictated by God. . . There can be no error in Scripture.” (Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, p. 31) Luther said, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” (Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science, and Church, 3d ed., p. 35)
We assume that when the Bible says the sun rose or set that it is only speaking figuratively or visually and not literally as we do today but when it said that it meant exactly what the words signify. They thought the sun actually rose and set because the earth was the center of the universe and the sun circled the earth. They not only saw the sun rise, they actually believed it.
This is really a test case of whether we take the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge or recognize that it was written without the kind of scientific information that we have available today. The people in Galileo’s day chose to follow the Bible as a source of scientific information and yet today everyone accepts Galileo’s observation that the sun revolves around the sun, even people who believe the Bible is literally a source for all truth.
God communicates with people in the situation where they are. The message that is essential does not change, that is, that God loves us and he want us to love one another. Whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa does not affect this truth.
Things have changed through the years. Jesus himself said, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:25). Some of these things apparently include the fact that circumcision will no longer be necessary for entrance into God’s church, and that slavery should be abolished, and I believe also that women should be considered equal with men.
*****
My Response to Readers' Critique of "Slavery, Circumcision, and the Ordination of Women"
First of all, I want to thank all of those who responded negatively or positively to my article. It shows your active interest in the topic.
One criticism was that the analogy between the items mentioned was lacking. The criticism was, for example, that slavery was never a condition of membership, as circumcision was. The point of my presentation was to show that the analogy was the use of Scripture to defend these practices mentioned in the Bible. Scripture was used to defend slavery, circumcision and the subordinate role of women. And it seems to me that analogy is obvious.
One serious concern was that what I was doing put everything up in the air and threatens the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I think this is a perceptive and serious criticism. However, if this approach is valid, it means that Jesus should not have brought in the changes he called for, that circumcision should be maintained, and that slavery should be practiced today. Obviously, it should not be lightly and flippantly done but obviously it ought to be done with great thought and care and I think on this issue it is being seriously dealt with.
Some mentioned that the biblical support against women’s ordination should be seriously considered and, therefore, women’s ordination should not be allowed. The point of the article was that sometimes biblical support is not adequate to maintain a practice which may be due to the culture of the time. Circumcision could not have had greater support yet it was not required for new Gentile Christians. It is ironical that Paul who is used as biblical support for women’s ordination today was the leading opponent of the biblical injunction to continue to circumcise those (the Gentiles) who were joining the church. In other words, Paul who is being used for biblical support of women’s ordination himself did not accept biblical support for the practice of circumcision.
The recent actions by the Trans-European Division and the North American Division granting women the right to hold executive offices on the conference level are encouraging signs for the ordination of women. However, It points out the inconsistency of our position. A woman can lead ordained male ministers as president of the conference but herself cannot be ordained. Why is this? Although Scripture can be used to oppose this move, the focus has been so much on ordination that it has not been used here and thus it is acceptable. This kind of inconsistency cannot last long.
Adventists are conservative and that leads to slowness in accepting changes. Adventists lag behind society in general in granting full equality. Persons of color were not allowed to eat in the Review and Herald cafeteria and elsewhere, were denied admittance to our hospitals, were not allowed to attend white churches in the South, were hardly represented in our white colleges. When I preached on this topic in June of 1964 at Andrews University's Pioneer Memorial Church, it caused an uproar since it was considered meddling in politics. I was never invited to speak again at that venue.
I hope that we will not continue to institutionalize discrimination. My hope is that soon our church will grant women all rights that they give to men. Then maybe the church will benefit from one hundred percent of its membership and not limit the full power of God to less than half.
—Sakae Kubo received his Ph.D. in New Testament and early Christian literature from the University of Chicago and taught eighteen years at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He later served as dean of the School of Theology at Walla Walla College and as president of Newbold College in England. He is the author of several books, including A Beginner's New Testament Greek Grammar.
Image: Artemisia Gentileschi, Jael and Sisera, 1620.
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The Bible wasn't written as a scientific textbookb but it is to be taken as it reads - poetry as poetry, history as history, prophetic symbolism according to Biblical rules. Of course sunrise and sunset are to be taken literally, just as in English and numerous other languages. You need wisdom and spiritual guidance to understand the Bible - wisdom comes from the fear of God, and spiritual guidance from the Holy Spirit, without whom our study of the Bible becomes useless, just like the lamp without oil is useless.
To make the Bible say more than it does and twist it as did the mediaeval church (and a do JW's today to interpret a text talking about eating blood as banning blood transfusions) shows a lack of wisdom and the Holy Spirit's guidance.
By your reasoning Pag...when it says Jesus turned the water into WINE, it's not spiritual and shows lack of wisdom to turn around and say that it wasn't wine that he made.
The premise of the article is excellent.
This statment leaves an erroneous impression:
"The Jews living as slaves in Egypt were not able to live the ideal Jewish life with their Sabbaths and lifestyle. The kind of laws."
Were there a people known as Jews at that time? Where does the Bible say that any of Abraham's and Jacob's ancestors were given either the sabbath or the peculiar lifestyle until Sinai? Since inference will be taken, should this be believed?
Elaine
Fay, you need to do a careful study on wine in the Bible.
There is evidence in Exodus the Israelites were aware of the Sabbath prior to it being given on Mt. Sinai. The Jews were referred to as the Israelites at that time or the children of Israel.
It is so very unfortunate that once again we Catholics get drug into this. Even worse the usual mistakes about Galileo are used. The story you think you know about Galileo and the Church is WRONG. Copernicus, a Catholic canon, first posited heliocentrism. Many believed it in Galileo's time and had no problems with the Church. There is a fine chapter on this in The Triumph of Christianity by Rodney Stark. Also this fine article:
http://www.catholicleague.org/galileo-and-the-catholic-church/
Elaine
I think Dr Kubo only referred to the OT version of the Jews being slaves in Egypt to make a point--that slaves are not in control of their lives or free to exercise any 'torah' they might have. From a purely historical point of view there is absolutely no evidence of any Egyptian 'captivity' on the part of the Jews, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that a large group of Jews ever descended upon Kanaan from the outside. Archeology, as you have pointed out several times before, shows that the distinction between Jews and Palestinians was topographical (Jews lived in the highlands, Palestinians in the lowlands) and religious. Otherwise, they were indistinguishable.
But let me not sidetrack the thread. Dr Kubo's is certainly correct in arguing that the communities of faith that have lived over time with the Hebrew and Christian scriptures have moved beyond the letter of the law in an attempt to reach for its spirit. When it comes to the letter of the law, there is not much difference between the torah and sharia law. The ultra-orthodox of Israel are a mirror image of the Taliban. They famously praise God in their prayers for having created them men and not women, and they insist women not be allowed to pray at the Western Wall. To them the grave of Baruch Goldman, who assassinated prime minister Begin, is sacred. They illustrate how far the rest of the Jewish community has traveled in search of a higher morality.
What most people don't realize is that Jews and Christians have moved on without much Biblical support. The Bible nowhere authorized Paul to toss out the Torah and its mandated circumcision. The Hebrew scriptures nowhere sanctioned the idea that a future Messiah would be God's avatar, or that his death reconciled sinful humans to an angry God. Evolution is not only biological in nature; morality and technology also advance by incremental steps.
Some people will never be able to accept Dr. Kubo's reasoning because they don't like broad moral principles; they only feel safe by following the letter of the law. A great deal of evil is perpetrated by good people who have no higher ethics than the homicidal letter of the law.
PS. Dr Kubo, only the witch of Endor could have allowed Luther to opine on the merits of Galileo's worldview. I suppose you meant Copernicus (10 years older than Luther) and not Galileo (born 18 years after Luther's death.)
Aage
Aage Rendalen,
I wonder how recently you have studied the history of Ancient Israel. When I took a class on it, I recall that scholarship was rather divided on these subjects. With several competing theories as to the development of the Israelites - one theory which was as you describe. This class was taught by an extremely liberal history professor who constantly criticized fundamentalist ideas about the Bible and history. The book "History of Ancient Israel" also was published by a secular publishing house as I recall. They actually leaned toward supporting the slave narrative on the logic that no people would make up such a demeaning lineage.
John Mark
Facts are neither secular nor religious. As long as we're dealing with cold facts, there was no mass invasion of Kanaan by an army of rebel slaves from Egypt. That's a story, as is the story of David and Solomon and King Arthur. These stories could theoretically be true; we just don't have any factual basis upon which to say so.
Aage
Aage Rendalen:
How unkind of you to point out Dr. Kubo's error: "Dr Kubo, only the witch of Endor could have allowed Luther to opine on the merits of Galileo's worldview. I suppose you meant Copernicus (10 years older than Luther) and not Galileo (born 18 years after Luther's death.)"
Have you forgotten the golden rule of "progressive" Adventism? the rule that says that your logic, your facts, your integrity are of no concern, as long as your conclusion supports the dominant political opinion? This article concludes that women should be ordained, so blatant errors of fact and the still more blatant errors of logic don't matter at all.
Dr. Kubo, as you allowed, probably mis-spoke, but his error fits right in with the general ethos here. Fallacies and non sequiturs and even prevarication don't matter, as long as the writer's heart is in the right place. For other examples, see recent postings or articles that that (1) fiddle with English punctuation to show that Paul didn't mean what he said, (2) a Spectrum editor's referring us to a theory that says (in effect) that if we don't agree with what the apostle says somebody else wrote it, and (3) a Spectrum guru's repeated insistence that executive authority in the SDA church operates bottom up so final authority rests with the local organizations (yes, he finally backed away, but it wasn't easy).
Aage,
The existence of David has been archaeologically proven since 1993.
Review the evidence of the Tel Dan Stele
Michael
Facts should never get in the way of strong opinions.
Elaine
Elaine:
You've done it again. What I took three paragraphs over, you say better in ten words (see previous posting).
BTW, I love the pneumatic Jael at the head of the article. I guess that stuff is OK as long as the cheesecake is impaling a male skull. Could it be that Artemesia favored female ordination, or the writer of Judges the first feminist?
Aage Rendalen,
The point is that when you're dealing with History and especially ancient history you're often not really dealing with cold hard proven facts, but varying levels of probability. I'm not saying what I learned in college is correct because it came from a secularist perspective, but merely pointed that out as a preemptive strike against those who would say what I learned was tainted by a fundamentalist bias. So my question stands as to how recently you have studied the History of Ancient Israel, as your knowledge seems quite out of date. Those that support your viewpoints as to David are the minimalist fringe of scholarship, as I recall, and not the mainstream.
Michael and John Mark
If we discovered that there actually was a Celtic chieftain named Arthur, would that validate the legendary story of King Arthur and the knights of the round table? As for David, the discovery you refer to does indeed establish that there was a person named David of sufficient prominence to leave an inscription behind. The problem is translating that fact into a unified monarchy that was the marvel of the Middle East, especially since the highlands of Judea around Jerusalem only featured two-three dozen hamlets of maybe 5000 people in the 10th century--if Israeli archaeology is to be trusted.
As for the quip about the witch of Endor, you're right. Humor has a tendency of coming across as arrogant and petty once it lands on paper, and I should have known better.
Settimbrini
You seem so full of resentment and so short on facts that I don't know how to answer you. What I would like to see you deal with is Dr Kubo's point that the past is often the past when it comes to ethics, and that the present tends to require more of us than what it did of previous generations. In your opinion, is ethics static or dynamic?
Aage
If I recall correctly David's role was largely to expanding the reach of the empire, while Solomon was the one who consolidated it and made it into a more centralized government. I think you're right that historical scholarship does not give evidence for all the details of David's story. However, scholarship has moved beyond thinking David and Solomon were pure myth, at least the mainstream has The minimalist school probably still holds to them being purely mythological. My impression of the minimalists is that they are as motivated by an ideological agenda as the fundamentalists, it's just the opposite agenda. For those interested in an up to date and balanced approach to historical scholarship on the Bible I would recommend the textbook my class used: "The History of Ancient Israel" 3rd Ed. edited by Hershel Shanks and published by Prentice Hall. The skeptics and fundamentalists should find plenty to like and dislike in the book.
Dr Kubo's article remined me of a story I heard years ago. Apparently there was a blacksmith who was asked to make shoes for a team of oxen and the ox owner provided the young blacksmith with a professionally made set of shoes for a model. The young man went to work but try as he might he could not get his shoes to match the model so instead of continuing to try to achieve his goal he heated up the perfect pair and made them to fit his own imperfect achievements.
There are those like Dr. Kubo who wish to have femles ordained in the SDA church.Period. The problem is that Scripture especially NT Scripture is adamantly opposed to such a practice. So what to do.?
Easy throw away whatever Scipture you don't agree with.Make the writings of Paul and the apostles only apply to their day and age and substitute the culture of the corrupt 21st century for the plain word of God.
Presto we can subscribe to whatever philosophy is currently in vogue and accept whatever perversion we wish with a clear conscience.
Aage Rendalen:
You challenge me to "deal with ... Dr Kubo's point that [1] the past is often the past when it comes to ethics, and [2] that the present tends to require more of us than what it did of previous generations." You also ask (3) whether, in my opinion, ethics is "static or dynamic".
(1) The past is always the past when it come to everything, not just ethics. How can such a platitude as this be "dealt with"? What can your question possibly mean?
(2) I don't know whether the present "tends" to require more of us. Do you?
(3) Dynamic. Obviously so. What's the point? How, for instance, does that get you to ordaining women? Dr Kubo's logic obviously doesn't get there.
You say I'm resentful. Well, let me know what I resent, and tell me how you know it. I certainly don't resent Dr Kubo's conclusion, or should I say, his "hope is that soon our church will grant women all rights that they give to men." I agree. But the logic of his article doesn't take us there.
Challenge yourself. Google First Scandal.
John Mark
The only 'minimalist' I've read is Thomas Thompson, The Mythic Past. Although I enjoyed the book--which also left me with a number of unanswered questions--I'm basing my views on Israeli archaeologists Silberman and Finkelstein's work, The Bible Unearthed.
Wikipedia summarizes their research in this way:"Although the book of Samuel, and initial parts of the books of Kings, portray Saul, David and Solomon ruling in succession over a powerful and cosmopolitan united kingdom of Israel and Judah, Finkelstein and Silberman regard modern archaeological evidence as showing that this is a pious fiction. Archaeology instead shows that in the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel had an insignificant existence, too poor to be able to pay for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire; it only emerged later, around the beginning of the 9th century BCE, in the time of Omri. There is little to suggest that Jerusalem, touted by the Bible as David's capital, was little more than a village during the time of David and of Solomon, and Judah remained little more than a sparsely populated rural region, until the 7th century BCE. Though the Tel Dan Stele confirms that a ruler named 'David' existed, it says little else about him."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
There is no need to ascribe an agenda to these scholars beyond trying to understand the past from a purely historical point of view.
Aage
Abe
You don't seem to have read Dr Kubo's article. You attempt to knock down arguments he doesn't use.
Settembrini
I rest my case.
Aage
Thank you, Dr Kubo for your germane thoughts and wise perspective after many years of service to the church. It seems that, like vintage wine, the longer we wait to hear from some of our senior professors, the better the flavor. The truth about the late Dr Richard Hammil's theology views, Dr Joseph Grieg's philosophy of religion, or Dr Sakae Kubo's social ethics, coming late in their lives, should not, of course, surprise their closest students, freinds or long-time readers.
Are the perspectives of progressive revelation and incarnational theology you rely on still being taught at SDA institutions? Maybe so, but many Adventists have never heard them adequately articulated. The hermeneutic they imply, which simply amounts to common sense to many of us, seems too threatening to the fundamentalists in our midst who have become fixated on the letters of scripture or ask us to narrow our worldview down to that of the original audiences--an impossibility.
So I hope you continue to write and engage in dialogue here with those who object to your ideas... we will all be better informed--and entertained!
Graeme
Wonderful to see Dr. Kubo in print! All those in favor of Dr. Kubo becoming chair of the GC's Biblical Research Institute say Aye! --Bud Racine
Finkelstein and Silberman regard modern archaeological evidence as showing that this is a pious fiction. .........Aage
its worse than that!!!!
while I can't vouch for this authors accuracy, he seems to explain well what archeologists have recently found...... or not found as the case may be
http://dqhall59.com/old_jericho.htm
quote:
Based on these and other findings, Joshua is not a credible account, nor was there credibility of an army numbering 600,000 fighting men crossing the deserts of the Sinai and Negev with their children and livestock. If they had crossed the desert and then lost even one battle at Ai (Et Tell - "The ruined village") by a handful of men who had been dead for hundreds of years, while Jericho behind them had been destroyed about 1550, and Hazor claimed to have been destroyed by Joshua in 1200 B.C. was to thrive for another few centuries, then there is some sort of calamity in this historical fiction. In as much as the battle accounts were faked, God's role in the politics of that era may have been faked also.
end quote
salient facts:
A) there is no archeological evidence of 600,000 Israelite warriors and their families camping for "40" yrs in the Sinai; no campfire pits, no coprolites, no privvies, no outside confirmation, and insufficient water to support such a large mass of humanity; then add in the number "40" which seems to represent the highest number that two goat herders can count on their combined digits...meaning it is an approximation, possibly an exaggeration, meaning "many".
B) the story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho are probably another 'pious fiction".....
since Jericho had been destroyed hundreds of years before Joshua got there.
Check out the above web sites history of the Canaan battles which do not correspond to the time of Joshua.
C) so much of the chronology of the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan cannot be verified as to make the entire story look like made up his-story in order to glorify the writers of the story and a few Hebrew heroes, including:
baby Moses reed basket river trip patterned after and borrowed from Sargon's similar tale over a thousand years older;
the Hebrews conversion from many gods (back in the days of Abraham; and even Jacobs wife stole her fathers "gods" and tried to sit on them to hide them claiming it was her monthly time and she couldn't get up) mirrors Akhnaten's attempts to reform Egyptian theology to monotheism;
http://www.heptune.com/Akhnaten.html
the ancient tale of Cain killing ABel may represent geography and how herding was approved by the writers of the story....over the farming done down in the valley by the Cain-anites......Abel and his goat herder relatives and descendents lived in the uplands, too dry for growing crops, but great for goats.....and since their relatives wrote the stories, they claimed that God approved the raising (and sacrifice) of animals more than the growing (and sacrifice) of crops down in the valley.
even if you disagree with the conclusion of archeologists, or the 200,000 year age of sediments recently drilled in the area of the Dead Sea as I posted over at the "Happy Birthday, Universe" thread, http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/23/happy-birthday-universe
.........its fun to look at the pix of the holy Land and remember those kindergarden Sabbath School classes that amazed us years ago....and which at the time we believed without question.
http://dqhall59.com/old_jericho.htm
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
"In the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
The versions that specify "without cause" make a bit more sense to me. In any event, there certainly is amply evidence of an ethical evolution, as is clear in the tensions between Old and New Testament paradigms, of aggression on the one hand and pacifism on the other. Such evidences put OT dogmatism on shaky ground.
I'm so grateful that someone has finally summoned the courage to tackle the serious and growing problem of geocentrism in the SDA Church. Thank you, Dr. Kubo!
Aage Rendalen:
I answered your questions, to the extent they were answerable, but you wouldn't answer mine. And I accept that you "rest your case." OK, then. I conclude, from what you've said in your "case" that you're the guy who thinks "is the past the past?" is a sensible question. You think you know whether the present "tends" to require more of us compared to some other unspecified age. And you think that the "dynamic" nature of ethics means - well I'm not sure what you think it means.
Nice going, Aage. You fit right in. Why, you even call me resentful (ad hominem anyone? non sequitur?). That's OK, as I said, logic and integrity mean nothing as long as you're on the right side of the argument). To borrow your courtroom analogy, you're Exhibit #1.
Happy Conformities!
settembrini, your disgust for Spectrum is a little out of place, since you keep coming back.
So far you haven't come up with anything more than an "Ad Spectrum-argument" which to me is a non sequitur.
Listen to your wife and don't post when you are angry...and get familiar with the fact that you love Spectrum. You have shown your ability to think and to take part in a serious discussion. I miss that settembrini, really!
.merry Christmas
Hi Marianne Faust:
You're right. I love Spectrum. Never said I didn't. It's a wonderful source of news (eg, see Jared on the
Loma Linda trial, among others), as well as being a well-managed, attractive site. No disgust there,
is there?
But when Spectrum shows its ideological purist side, it looks pretty bad. Logic and integrity give way to spin, jargon and even vilification of "enemies". (Example, have you seen the level of insult and denigration aimed at Ted Wilson over the female ordination issue? Are you proud of that?)
On that specific point, it's too bad that many of those who support female ordination favor rants and
name-calling and fallicies over logic and honesty. After all, the case for female ordination is far
stronger than any case against it that I've seen (the opposition seems to be so completely confused
and/or hypocritical that there's no pertinent way to answer them). But those rants and name-calling and fallacies are more visible on Spectrum than the occasional common-sense argument, and they need to be exposed before Spectrum's plummeting reputation as home for the lunatic fringe falls even lower.
And I hope you'll say so again, next time you think I need a reprimand. Amabo te.
Settembrini, to be honest, my Latin doesn't go any further than the sayings in Asterix and Obelix, I had to look that one up...
So you were mad at something concerning Ted Wilson and the female ordination. But I still don't know exactly what you mean. Like you I don't like insults, but to tell you the truth, the way this poor woman in Australia was treated by our president, was insulting, and like you I feel the need to speak up when this happens. So there we have common ground: we both dislike insults and we both dislike hypocrisy. Now we should leave it there for the moment and next time you feel insulted by me or anything that is written here, let's reason about it. But I prefer to reason about a specific thing rather than about some vague overall judgement.
And then it can be really fun to reason with you, as I said, I really like you, because you are interested in so many topics and... well I'll leave it there...
Setembrinni: I hope you are carefully distinguishing between the articles found on this website and the following comments - when you complain about Spectrum bias. Short of heavy censoring or banishment, management allows strong opinions in the comments.
But if your criticism - e.g. "when Spectrum shows its ideological purist side, it looks pretty bad. Logic and integrity give way to spin, jargon and even vilification of "enemies". (Example, have you seen the level of insult and denigration aimed at Ted Wilson over the female ordination issue? Are you proud of that?) ... favor rants and name-calling and fallicies over logic and honesty ... those rants and name-calling and fallacies are more visible on Spectrum than the occasional common-sense argument, and they need to be exposed before Spectrum's plummeting reputation as home for the lunatic fringe falls even lower. "
If you are directing this (I say) very harsh criticism at the articles, then I would appreciate you providing examples as you see them. Examples that truly justify the harshness of your critique. There may be some, as I don't read everything on this site. And, if so, the website management needs to take the criticism seriously.
But as for commenters, what would you propose management do to avoid seeing "Spectrum's plummeting reputation as home for the lunatic fringe falls even lower."
Really, what do you practically propose be done? There is not the staff to read all the comments and do the sort of heavy editing - even bowdlerizing - that it seems to me you call for.
I do know Spectrum management does worry about the concerns you've expressed. But I think it is easy to say something ought to be done, but much harder - perhaps impossible practically - to actually effectively do something.
But your ideas - and any other readers - are definitely welcome. I don't mean my comment to act like a discussion-stopper. I just want separation between content management is responsible for and content it has to deal with after-the-fact.
Aage wrote Tue, (12/20/2011 - 17:55)
and made an erroneus statement about Begin and Goldman. Most of us mix up things not belonging together, at least I myself, now and then.
Mr. Begin died of heart attack, and Goldman was the murderer in Patriachs' Cave incident.
Cf. Wikipedia on those two celebrities.
Pauli Heikkinen
Marianne Faust:
I doubt that my Latin is better than yours, but there are a few things that go well in Latin and not so well in English, like their version of "please". Thanks for taking the trouble to think about it.
And yes, I like you too, not least (don't take it the wrong way amabo te) for your beautiful, evocative name. In my wildest dreams, I would never have expected to actually discover a woman whose name conjures up thoughts of both an unfortunate victim of Herodes Magnus, thereby sharing the fate of the massacred innocents (and this at Christmas time!), and one of the most powerful of all personifications of medieval theological thought. It makes the the head swim. But here I must stop, for fear of being doubly taken off by a Spectrum Mephistopheles for being off-topic and flirting.
Thanks for your friendly response. :)
Disclaimer for whoever needs it: the name Mephistopheles is used as a playful literary allusion and is in no way to be construed as saying that anyone associatied with Spectrum is in any way diabolical.
Rich Hannon:
Thanks for your friendly posting, directed to me. I think I'm becoming a nag, so I'll make this my last comment on the general topic you raise, so, if you wish, you'll have the last word. I've tried to respond to your main points (if I understood you) as follows.
You insist on making a distinction between bloggers and editors/writers.
Well, naturally (even when the writers have trouble with the distinction between reporting and editorializing). And yes, (maybe this is your point), the worst examples of intemperate language and confused logic come from bloggers; but only as a general rule, with many exceptions. (Remember that mean-spirited personal attack on Cliff Goldstein - it was a while back? It didn't come from bloggers.)
Should Spectrum do anything to control what the bloggers say?
Well, Spectrum can't censor, can they? How could they? "Toleration," "non-discrimination," "diversity," "openness," and "inclusiveness" seem to stand at the head of Spectrum's list of virtues (oops, values) so they are stuck with what they get. I would, naturally, like to see all of us as intolerant, in our comments, of biased reporting, bad logic, mean-spirited insults, political ideology, prevarication and propagandistic jargon, as some contributors are of imperialism, capitalism, Ellen White, Cliff Goldstein, the Investigative Judgement and Ted Wilson. After all, refusal to censor is not equivalent to condoning nonsense. If somebody, even a Spectrum luminary, says, "It's wrong to say 'God Bless America' because that is equivalent to saying 'God don't bless anybody else'," somebody should laugh at that, without demanding it be censored; if somebody were to quote the verse in Mark as, "The Sabbath was made for man, not just Jews," ditto. I just hate to see Spectrum condoning stuff like that. (Are you old enough to remember when Spectrum's heroes were Rea, McAdams, Numbers, and others of that quality?)
You ask for examples of problems with articles.
What shall I say? "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh an example"? (Just kidding.) But (forgive me) I am bored with giving examples in this space, so I'll forego the opportunity to either repeat the ones I've already given or to find different ones. Moreover, if I repeat those I given recently I'll seem to be picking on specific writers or issues; and for fresh examples, I'd need to scrupulously go back and make sure my details are in order, and I have better ways to spend the minutes. So if you insist that Spectrum (including the articles) is free (even relatively free) of the errors I listed above (the errors that shouldn't be tolerated) and that you require me to provide more examples before you'll reconsider your position, I'll have to leave you where you are. I concede, I recant. You won this round, and I leave you in control of the field.
Eppur si muove. (Just kidding, again.)
Thanks again for your thoughtful and friendly posting.
Aye! Count me, Bud.
Humberto
"All those in favor of Dr. Kubo becoming chair of the GC's Biblical Research Institute say Aye!"
Nay! One poster explained it quite well. See above.
"There are those like Dr. Kubo who wish to have females ordained in the SDA church.Period. The problem is that Scripture especially NT Scripture is adamantly opposed to such a practice. So what to do.?
Easy throw away whatever Scripture you don't agree with.Make the writings of Paul and the apostles only apply to their day and age and substitute the culture of the corrupt 21st century for the plain word of God."
Succinctly put and accurate. How far from Scripture would we wander under leadership that allows current culture to be the guide to the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to be a guide to culture. O tempora, o mores!
Pauli
Yes, you're right. Rabin, not Begin.
Aage
"It is so very unfortunate that once again we Catholics get drug into this." -- Fr. Jim
Me thinks thou doth protest too much! - I didn't see the word "Catholic" used in this article, did you? Thank you for the link to the article - it's interesting history. However it doesn't alter the facts or the issues of Galileo's trial, and any errors of fact in the above article are, in my opinion, minor and do not change the overall validity of the example.
It does illustrate the tension between religious fundamentalists and liberals, and shows there are times when enlightenment will render existing scriptural understandings incorrect. It's significance in this article is that it's the first real example beyond the closing of the canon where this occurred. The circumcision debate occurred in Bible times, and is documented within the canon.
The original article on slavery, circumcison and the role of women was written with a focus on social issues rather than science, however the same issues arise where progress appears to collide with our understanding of scripture. So while the focus of the thread was on the role of women in the SDA church, there is also a connection to the current debate on origins and the age of the earth. The story of Galileo should serve as a warning to the leadership of the SDA church as regards how they deal with that issue.
Wow settembrini! I'm impressed! Let me say only this: I can understand that you didn't like the article about C. Goldstein. May be it was too personal after all...
But he is a tough guy, he can handle critique...don't you think? I didn't know him before, but now after reading this article and many of his posts, I actually think he is kind of funny... and even interesting... see what I mean? At least for me, it hasn't ruined his reputation. I somehow got to know him a little bit more and I guess I can say that I even like him...(well I mean this "cyber-knowing-liking...")
I hope this doesn't sound stupid...but I mean that. I prefer the honest - fighting type who isn't afraid to fight and who isn't afraid to admit he was wrong once in a while... I like that so much more than the hypocritical type in whose posts one can read between each line that he is way ahead on his journey to perfection.
to Fr. Jim
Let me also say thanks for the link. It was interesting, even though I had read similar descriptions before. As I read I was reminded of similar stories about Desmond Ford. And I still think it supports Kubo's assertion that Biblical support for a position is not the final word on the matter.
Martin
Martin
If indeed the Bible is not the final authority on any subject of religious concern why bother with the Bible at all. If we just pick and choose the few parts we like and ignore the rest of what value is Scripture to any of us. We have elevated our own limited grasp of a subject to take the place of divine counsel if indeed the Bible is the word of God.
Maybe Dr Kubo with his superior education and status feels qualified to decide which utterances of the Holy Spirit apply in today's world but that is a vain and pretentious position to take and fraught with danger.
If Paul was called by God to be the apostle to the gentiles then we do well to heed his counsel even if we do not fully understand it. There is no place for female ordination or leadership in the Christian church.While we may not fully understand why that is so we do well to follow that counsel. The Christian denominations that ignored Paul very soon became the denominations that ordain gays and have no light left in their doctrines.
Alex, I'm curious about the relevance of the illustration, Jael driving the tent peg through the head of Sisera. ??
The illustration dipicts the unrelibilty of the female gender.Sisera had just had imtimate relations with Jael and she killed him.
A warning probably to the church about trusting females with leadrship.
Abe
"If indeed the Bible is not the final authority on any subject of religious concern why bother with the Bible at all. If we just pick and choose the few parts we like and ignore the rest of what value is Scripture to any of us."
I feel like responding: "You tell me, because that's what everybody does, including you." Being Christian means that you have to pick and choose.
PS. No wonder you don't trust women in leadership positions; you obviously don't like women at all, and I suspect that it's misogynism and not scripture that informs your gender theology. Afghanistan would be a good fit for you.
Aage
the illustration shows a murder...in the time of the Judges.....which the 10 C's prohibited....
but in this case it was OK to murder despite the perfidy of promising to protect the guy,,,then killing him....because, as usual, it was God who delivered him up to be killed!!!.....
several possible morals to the story:
A) you do evil, (whatever that is), again and again, the Lord punishes you...this time with 20 yrs of servitude.
..."1 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.
2 And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.
3 And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Bf) the Lord sometimes works thru women prophetesses....
..."Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and.............. I will deliver him into thine hand.
C) lying, cheating, breaking a promise, and murder are OK if it is for your people, or the Lord:
..."8 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
19 And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
20 Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
D) and this was for the Lord, so its ok to lie, cheat, break a promise, and murder, despite the guy trusting her, because God arranged it all:
."23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.
E) and everybody lived happily ever after
........."24 And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.
possible reason to include this episode with the article which asks about how we should
"interpret scripture"............???
either the story is literal, and God got angry at the people and "gave them" into servitude for 20 yrs,
then changed his mind and helped deliver a guy to be killed to effect their release...
or
this is another in a long list of stories of how the Israelites got beaten by a neighbor, or a drought, or some other calamity, and ascribed it to displeasing their god, but later were able to overcome that problem and ascribed that to their God helping them.....even to the extent of using murder to effect the outcome....
(like how God ((allegedly)) massacred innocent Egyptian firstborn to influence the Pharoah;
or how God killed Davids innocent baby to punish David for his sin with Bathsheba and having her husband killed)
so it could be illustrating the usual problem of interpreting things...either literally, as actual, true history, or as illustrative of how superstitious, scientifically ignorant people viewed the world around them which they didn't understand.
either that, or the editor simply picked a pic from images.google.com from the Judges era
to go along with the article!!!!!
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Actually Aage i like women very much especially when they are fulfilling their God given role of being a helpmate bearing children and keeping at home.
To my way of thinking nothing witnesseth better than a well ordered family and a happy husband.True in todays world it is difficult to find a woman who has not been influenced by the babble of voices claming gender equallity. But I am sure they do exist that is why I am willing to try one more time after another to find that perfect spouse.
But perhaps you are right maybe my best chance for a happy marriage would be to visit Afghanistan there are very attractive women there . As far as one can tell that is given their dress and deportment.
Abe,
Obviously Aage was right - have you considered moving to Afghanistan? The conditions there would be ideal for you and your views. In addition, you can expect women to be fully covered there, and if they are raped then it is often considered to be their fault. What else can a man (like you) ask for?
Abe
If it hadn't been for the fact that you went back and removed the misogynistic slur that I referred to, I would have said that you couldn't be for real, that you were masquerading as an anti-feminist in order to bring Christian misogyny into disrepute. Normally, men who don't consider women to be their equals don't come out and state so openly. I can only hope that your search for a suitable doormat of the feminine persuasion will take a long, long time.
Aage
John Alfke,
Regarding Judges:
I remember going through the book in Graham Maxwell's class in the early 70's at Loma Linda He wanted us to read the book with this question in mind: What does this book tell us about God, or what is the picture of God shown here? After reading the book I realized that if God could work with and attempt to redeem these sorry people, he could work with and save me. It was a wonderful and enduring revelation. I have not forgotten it, and am grateful for Maxwell's insight and God's inclusion of the book in the cannon.
Just because they used "unorthodox methods" does not mean God approved them. But God does use these methods sometimes himself. See Habakkuk. You let God of the hook to easily by saying the stories are not literal.
Allan Shepherd, that is an excellent insight. A sterile Bible with everything fitting into a neat mathematical equation might satisfy the mind of enlightenment skeptics, but it would hardly speak to the human condition.
I indicated in my two recent articles that the Bible reflects different cultures and practices. There is in the Bible a reflection of the culture and practices of the time but above all of these culture and practices, there is also the ideal ethics and morality God wants us to reach. For example, while polygamy may be practiced, that is not considered the biblical ideal which Genesis points to as monogamy. While slavery is practiced beyond that is the biblical ideal of the equality of all men. This is true also regarding the subordination of women. The creation account which indicates that woman came from the side not the top or bottom of man shows that she should be considered his equal. The account also indicates that man—both male and female—was created in the image of God. Paul himself who seems to support the subordination of women and slavery pointed to the ideal in Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
All have come to acknowledge that there is no Jew or Greek, i.e., that all races are equal. Black or white, yellow or brown or whatever all have equal status before God. We also have come to acknowledge that there is neither slave nor free. But we have not yet come to recognize that there is neither male nor female in the church. It is being recognized by almost everyone else. It is not just women’s ordination as such that we are promoting (It just happens to be the particular issue in the church where this inequality shows itself), but what I am promoting is the full equality of men and women. Not only should women be ordained but they should have complete equality in all things. They should be allowed to be elected to any office including General Conference President. They should receive all the financial benefits that men receive for the work they do. We have recognized the full equality of the races. Let us now recognize the full equality of the sexes.
>Allen..who
remembers going through the book in Graham Maxwell's class in the early 70's at Loma Linda
I was there near the same time but took Provencha's classes
and I remember trying to understand the Hebrew sacrificial system as an "audio visual aide" to help people believe that they had helped "earn" what God had freely offered.....forgiveness.
the massacre of millions of animals was not necessary for God's benefit, tho they wrote that He liked the aroma of a good BBQ, rather it may be seen as helping the Hebrews to believe they had contributed something to be worthy of forgiveness and salvation... and that witnessing the pain, terror, and suffering of innocent animals so "sacrificed" might motivate one to do better and not have to kill more goats for forgiveness.
either that, or this was just the Hebrews story....and they believed they were pleasing their god with all the spilled blood.
the ultimate extension of this concept could be the (unthinkable for most Christians) hypothesis that Jesus death and supposed resurrection along with communion, prayer, walking the stages of the cross, and praying for forgiveness might likewise be wonderful audio visual aides to people who feel guilty for not measuring up to their adopted (groups) standards and to feel that thru their efforts (paying tithe, visiting shut ins, trying to keep the sabbath on a round earth) they are contributing to a "process" which insures their own forgiveness and bettering their chances for reaching the ultimate goal of eternal understanding and happiness.
maybe thats why Tibetans trek around a sacred mountain, often prostrate, and why Muslims endlessly circle a meteorite inside the Kabbah, and why Jews schlep up to Masada, and why Christians hike the stations of the Cross, and why SDA's pay their tithe with a check in order to have a receipt to show God or the IRS----- whoever asks first.
where there's a will and a heavy counterbalance, there's a way.
http://www.wimp.com/mastbridge/
Add your comment