Can words placed in God's mouth be his?

[marco]

In discussion the following quote from Yahweh came up from Exodus 20.

""And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon"

Let us ignore the unintentional humour in the second conditional statement and ask simply why God is so concerned about nakedness.

We'll hear that we must immerse ourselves in the times and practices of the past, but it is the Creator of the Universe speaking. Perhaps his commands suggests a human composition.

In reading the above do we

(a) Laugh (b) Praise God for his attention to detail and his concern about decency
(c) Conclude that this is not God talking.

[1213]

In discussion the following quote from Yahweh came up from Exodus 20.

""And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon"

Let us ignore the unintentional humour in the second conditional statement and ask simply why God is so concerned about nakedness.

So, are you saying it is not bad, if the people below the stairs see the nakedness of the person climbing the stairs?

[marco]

In discussion the following quote from Yahweh came up from Exodus 20.

""And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon"

Let us ignore the unintentional humour in the second conditional statement and ask simply why God is so concerned about nakedness.

So, are you saying it is not bad, if the people below the stairs see the nakedness of the person climbing the stairs?

There is nothing bad about it. It is probably socially inappropriate but surely outside the remit of Almighty God. Should he be telling us how to eat with a knife and fork?

[Overcomer]

Israel was the nation set apart by God as the vehicle through which he would introduce Jesus Christ and, therefore, the salvation of all those who accept it from him in faith. The instructions he gave to the Israelites about worship, sacrifices, cleanliness, eating, etc. were given to set them apart from the pagans in every aspect of their lives.

These particular instructions refer to Canaanite practices of that time. Canaanites built altars of hewed stones with steps. Sexual intercourse was one of their "worship" rituals. Exposure of the genitalia was part of that ritual.

So these instructions weren't simply a matter of prudishness. They were meant as a polemic against Canaanite religious practices. God was making it clear that they were NOT to imitate the Canaanites, but show themselves to be different with regard to altars and worship.

It's interesting to note that in Lev. 6:10 and 9:22, the Israelites did indeed build altars with stairs, but God instructed the priests to wear linen undergarments.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

We'll hear that we must immerse ourselves in the times and practices of the past, but it is the Creator of the Universe speaking. Perhaps his commands suggests a human composition.

A nice attempt to preempt a rational response. If God were to speak to us today, would we appreciate it if he treated us as residents of 100,000 A.D.? The presence of what we consider taboo in the O.T. could easily point towards God's gracious accommodation: speaking to people where they are.

[marco]

Israel was the nation set apart by God as the vehicle through which he would introduce Jesus Christ and, therefore, the salvation of all those who accept it from him in faith. The instructions he gave to the Israelites about worship, sacrifices, cleanliness, eating, etc. were given to set them apart from the pagans in every aspect of their lives.

These particular instructions refer to Canaanite practices of that time. Canaanites built altars of hewed stones with steps. Sexual intercourse was one of their "worship" rituals. Exposure of the genitalia was part of that ritual.

So these instructions weren't simply a matter of prudishness. They were meant as a polemic against Canaanite religious practices. God was making it clear that they were NOT to imitate the Canaanites, but show themselves to be different with regard to altars and worship.

It's interesting to note that in Lev. 6:10 and 9:22, the Israelites did indeed build altars with stairs, but God instructed the priests to wear linen undergarments.

Yes, the Israelites were Canaanites, belonging to a vast area around the Eastern Mediterranean.. The difference was more like that between Catholic and Protestant, since the underlying beliefs were the same.. It is not certain that there was child sacrifice; this might reflect infant mortality and common burial by a temple to console parents.. I don't know where you get "sexual intercourse was one of their rituals."

And we should not excuse Yahweh and curse the many Canaanite gods. Take this passage from Ezekiel:20



25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

Yahweh has people burning babies as a sacrifice to him, having given them a bad statute. Nice.

[marco]

A nice attempt to preempt a rational response. If God were to speak to us today, would we appreciate it if he treated us as residents of 100,000 A.D.? The presence of what we consider taboo in the O.T. could easily point towards God's gracious accommodation: speaking to people where they are.

I was pre-empting an excuse. If God were to speak then we'd have some interesting material to talk about here. His attempts at speaking in the distant past were unworthy of an informed deity. "Please do not show too much flesh - it makes me embarrassed. " God parodies himself.

[Willum]

You know M- you make great points.

This kind of humor would appeal to the one I suspect it the real author of the OT and NT, naked and tools, well this kind of base humor can be found as themes in Tiberius Caesar's writings.

That kind of subtle humor, such as Moses worshiping God's rear end, and so-on, as well as the prophesies of Isaiah being tweaked to fit himself and his father, makes me strongly suspect Rome used insurrection, and the cultivated ignorance of the Palestinians, to re-write their religion.

This supported of course, by the great disparage between the history of Palestine, and the events recorded in the Bible.

The question would be, was Tiberius Caesar a big enough used-food-dispenser to do this to a people in order to enforce Rome's rule on a country.

The answer is, yes.

[Mithrae]

These particular instructions refer to Canaanite practices of that time. Canaanites built altars of hewed stones with steps. Sexual intercourse was one of their "worship" rituals. Exposure of the genitalia was part of that ritual.

So these instructions weren't simply a matter of prudishness. They were meant as a polemic against Canaanite religious practices. God was making it clear that they were NOT to imitate the Canaanites, but show themselves to be different with regard to altars and worship.

It's interesting to note that in Lev. 6:10 and 9:22, the Israelites did indeed build altars with stairs, but God instructed the priests to wear linen undergarments.

I can't for the life of me remember which translation it was, but I'm fairly sure that as a lad I read a version which only said don't make an altar with steps up it "lest you be exposed." In light of all the rules and regulations governing the priests' conduct - never being ceremonially unclean while they serve, washing, wearing the right garments etc, rules so strict that two of Aaron's sons were killed seemingly within their first months of ministry - I took it to mean being unduly exposed before Heaven: A prohibition against the presumption and hubris of either ascending towards God or elevating themselves above their fellow Israelites, rather than mere physical nakedness (as if anyone would be standing directly beneath the steps to sneak a peek anyway!).

The undergarments you mention were prescribed within seven or eight weeks of that initial Exodus 20 covenant according to the story (28:42), which might be explained in light of the dual J and E sources for the material, but otherwise makes no sense in terms of the narrative we have today. A prohibition against hubris expressed in terms of exposure before God would also seem to be a more profound and meaningful command (albeit one which virtually all modern preachers ignore). The downside would be that by implication Solomon's ten cubit altar (2 Chr. 4:1) - which of course was not of unhewn stone to begin with, and before which he himself prayed and offered prodigious sacrifices (1 Kings 8) - was not at all in accordance with "God's" will, though rather typical of the arrogance and excess which characterized much of his reign.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by marco]

I was pre-empting an excuse. If God were to speak then we'd have some interesting material to talk about here. His attempts at speaking in the distant past were unworthy of an informed deity. "Please do not show too much flesh - it makes me embarrassed. " God parodies himself.

I do not see how this is an argument; seems more like a description of your own aesthetic reaction.