Thank you for your comments and responses guys. Appreciated. Jim, you stated that you believed the bible is the inspired word of God. Why do you believe that and what do you do with some of the inconsistencies in the bible. As a small example, today we read the story of Joseph (which is a story I like as it indicates that God has a plan even in the nastiest parts of our life) and it states in Genesis 37:36 that the Midianites brought Joseph to Egypt and sold him, but in Genesis 39:1 it says it was the Ishmaelites. Did God make a mistake? Was there an error in translation? Is there something to the story I'm missing? Does one just write stuff like this off and say, oh well, God must have had some kind of reason for having it written this way? Sorry I'm such a pain in the butt, but this is the kind of stuff that bugs me and I feel like I need to be able to reconcile somehow, and it never really seems to bug anyone else. Comments?

...rich

Good Morning:

I know what you are saying Rich, sometimes the things said in the Bible seem not congruent -- but if you look at the background and understand the context they make sense. Such as the fact that the Ishmaelites and and the Midianites were both descendants of Abraham from the servant wives that were sent to the east, so as to not compete with Issac. And if you understand that both lines were mixed up in the trade business and their "labels" were used interchangeably in that context -- then to me it makes sense. They are used that way in Judges 8 also. I think of it like somewhat like saying someone is of the "Democratic camp" or the "Obama camp" which can be the same but different.

For some reason both groups needed to get the recognition, or blame as it may be, for taking part in Joseph's captivity. Wow, when you look at it -- Joseph's half brothers sold him into slavery through his "cousins", although somewhat removed.

Thanks for your clarification Marc with your commentations today. I had never heard of the masturbation issue being attached to this story. It does seem that it was more of a "birth control" measure.

I think the thing that bothers me in these chapters is that Judah indulged in the use of a prostitute -- and did not seem too ashamed about it. In that day a man would avenge his sister's sexual mis-use with the penalty of death -- but he could lay with a prostitute and that was "OK"? I know -- the context -- I just have a hard time with the way women were valued, or not. I guess God knew that I needed to be in this time in history -- or who knows what torrid story might have my name attached to it in the O.T.? :-)

I am with you LuDell. I have always wondered what that was ok. Different classes I guess? Yuck

I agree with you LuDell and Jacqui. I find it very interesting that the men were not held to the same standard as women in regard to sexual interactions. Men could have multiple wives and women only one husband, men would sleep with other women, but it was only the women who would be punished, even if they were raped. I mean we see this happen again in John 8, when the Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery, to Jesus. From my understanding of the definition of adultery, it would also require there to be a man involved, but where is he in this story. I realize they are trying to trick Jesus, but since it was a trap, one of them would have had to have been in on it. But the idea is still that men seem to be able to get away with this. Even today, I see this kind of attitude, when a guy sleeps with several women he is called a "Stud", which has a very positive tone, but when a woman sleeps with several different guys, she is called . . . well . . . several different things, none of which are kind, and far from having any positive tones to it. I guess we as a people as a whole just haven't completely learned our lessons yet. Sad.

Have a great day all.
A

You all are seeing how the Bible, as a historical document, reflects the various cultures in which it was written. It's just an unfortunate fact that women at this point in history were considered property. The reason that rape was a problem was not because it was a violation of the woman's rights and personhood. It was a problem because it was a violation of some man's (her husband or her father) property rights. Plus, rape had the added problem of screwing up the bloodline, which was nearly more important than anything. It's something we should all be thankful for that as God revealed more of Himself, and his followers followed Him more closely, that these standards changed so that women could finally experience the equality and true value that God created them for from the very beginning.

Hey Rich - I wanted to respond in one way to your thoughts about the disparity in scripture. There's a spectrum of beliefs on exactly what inspiration means when it comes to the Bible. On one end you have those who believe in plenary inspiration. These folks believe that the Bible is verbally inspired, and that every word we see today is exactly the word that God intended. Slightly less stringent, there are people who believe in plenary inspiration of only the original autographs (the handwritten original documents.) On the far, far end of the scale at the other end are people who believe that scripture is an entirely man-made document. When you read scripture itself you find something in the middle. In Timothy 3:16 we hear that the very words of scripture are "breathed" by God and useful for teaching and correction. But in the 1st Chapter of Luke we learn that Luke did not write his book in a vision, but instead by interviewing eye witnesses and compiling a report - much like a journalist. (Continuing...)

...It seems to me that the Bible presents inspiration like this: God inspired certain people to write. In some cases He gave them visions. In other cases He inspired their ideas, and it was up to them to choose the words. As a whole, the collection of scripture is inspired by God in that it contains everything we need for life and salvation, and it has arrived to us in the form He desires. But, it's hard to show from scripture itself the view that every single word - in every language, of every translation, is precisely the word God intended.

For some people this causes a crisis of confidence. If every single word isn't exactly what God intended, can we still trust the document? I think this is a strange and illogical fear. Here's why. Let's say that there was a traffic accident on your street on Sunday afternoon. Many neighbors were out. When the police come to sort things out, they interview all the different witnesses. When you look at the final reports you find something interesting. They are different! Some said that the speeding car was going 20 mph, others thought that it was going 50. Some said that the shirt of the driver was red. Someone else says that the shirt was blue. Even motive gets questions. One witness thought that the driver of the car was willfully negligent, while someone else thought they saw a cat run across the street and distract the driver. When you looked at all these reports the last thing you would do is assume that there was no traffic accident, or the the people involved had fabricated the story.

(Continuing) The only logical thing to do would be to assume that there had been an accident, and to look more deeply into the story to understand the disparities.

I see scripture similarly. The overall narrative of the story is absolutely inspired by God. The people who wrote the story were inspired. But when it comes to details like the color of the shirts (Was Joesph sold to this tribe or that tribe?) we're not really talking about inspiration at all, but about the writers themselves. It has helped me immensely to understand the Bible in incarnational terms. Jesus is the model. John calls Jesus the Word. Logos in the Greek. We call scripture the word of God. Jesus was entirely God and at the same time in a mysterious juxtaposition, entirely human. That's the mystery of the incarnation. Fully God, fully man. I believe the Bible is incarnational too. It's entirely a human document. Every single word was written by human people, each of them rooted in their own cultural and religious context. It's been translated and copied and transmitted to us over the centuries by countless other humans. Anyone who says the Bible isn't a human document is ignoring this fact. But at the same time, mysteriously, the Bible is an entirely divine document. God has carefully guided the process so that the end result that we have in our hands (or on our screens) today shares everything that we need for salvation and spiritual growth. Fully human / fully divine. Just like Jesus.

Ah pooh! When I started thinking about my comments, Marc's outstanding explanation was not posted yet. He said everything so much better than me, but because it takes me so much time and effort to type my comments, there is no way I'm going to discard them. So, here they are.

Aaron, Jacqui and LuDell, I agree whole heartedly that the treatment of women in that culture was grossly unfair and hypocritical. Unfortunately, today we have gone way too far the other way and just about anything goes for most anybody. Either way - not too pleasing to God.

LuDell, you are right that the two names were used synonymously – at least that is one common belief. Another is that both Midianites and Ishmeelites were traveling in the one caravan. It’s easy to see how both groups could be mentioned at different times. In addition, I don’t see the point of the story being so much about who Joseph was sold to as much as how he remained faithful to God in all sorts of difficulty and how much God valued that faith. The same thing happens when Matthew, Luke and John record Jesus saying Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crows, but Mark said before the cock crows twice Peter would deny Him three times. Does that mean that Mark is wrong? I don’t think it matters. The point is not how many times the cock crowed, but rather that Peter would deny him three times.

Rich, I believe it is also possible that God intended for little discrepancies like that to be left by the writers so we would be encouraged to spend a little more time in His inspired word and consequently get a better overall understanding of what God really wants us to learn! I know your questions have always made me think and study, so I for one am very grateful for you being, as you so eloquently put it, “a pain in the butt”.

Hey guys...

Thanks for the input. I appreciate the different perspectives and it gives me a lot to think about. Marc, you obviously did some homework and I sincerely appreciate the amount of effort you unvested in your reply. And Jim... anything that starts out with Ah Pooh... well, it just has to be some kind of a spiritual insight! :)

...rich

Greetings,

Another thought to throw in the pile about the differences in scripture -
I see two kids of "contradictions." Sometimes they're little things like the name of a tribe or a color of a shirt. The details are small and don't really affect the overall point of the story. They don't bug me much because I am comfortable with the messy and mysterious process of inspiration.
But there is another kind of contradiction that is harder to wrestle with. Sometimes there are places in the Bible when different authors go to a great amount of effort to make a point that is exactly opposite of a point made somewhere else in the Bible. There are a ton of example in the Old Testament - like the books of Jonah and Nahum. They are written about the same event to the same people at the same point in history. The point in Jonah is a powerful message to forgive one's worst enemies and to recognize that God is trying to reach Gentiles. In Nahum God says that the foreigners are going to burn and be destroyed. It drips of horrifying vengeance and anger. So - which is it? Or like in 1 & 2 Kings the author makes the strong point that the punishment for sin is passed down from generation to generation. Then in 1 & 2 Chronicles the author talks about that idea and says the opposite - you get what you sow. Sin is not inherited. So, then, which is it? Do we get to pick one and dump the other? How do we pick?

I've come to think that instead of being worried about the credibility of the Bible, I can rest knowing that God holds the complexity of Truth speaks different parts of it when humanity needs to hear different parts. We live in tension and paradox between different ideas taught in the Bible and it can be a hard place to stay. We can't pick one and dump the other. We also can't say that one disqualifies the other. And I have found that the it gives the Bible more living dimension than the idea that the Bible only has a one point to make for any given topic. Still, this has been a huge theme of my journey with the Bible lately, trying to really listen to what the writers were saying and the Holy Spirit about why these stories and words are the Word of God for today.

Only thought on the readings today is that I feel bad for Jesus being so crowded by people all the time. No wonder he needed to get away!

Brit