[quote]This doesn't make the book any more accurate, or any less hypocritical.[/quote] It sure makes it less hypocritical. Jesus said that you should love everyone, and that doesn't correspond with the Old Testament laws. [quote]Look at the entirety of the book of Job and then like all of the book of Psalms. Job centers around the idea that we cannot fully understand God's will, nor can we explain His justice for the world. Bad things can, and will, happen to good people, and good will happen to bad. Then you have the book of Psalms, and other books such as Proverbs, which continuously say "do good and good WILL happen to you" promising riches and a thriving house/family.[/quote] Psalms doesn't say that good things will come to you specifically in this life though. Do good and good things will come to you can also mean that you will be rewarded in the afterlife for good deeds. [quote]Those are teachings, not laws.[/quote] Indeed they are. [quote]I'd also like to mention that the authors of the books themselves are hypocritical. Solomon constantly talks about how evil "strange women" are and further admonishes women in his book saying how it's better to live in the -blam!-ing woods than to live with a testy woman, but he himself was led astray by women at the end of his life.[/quote] That is because, at the end of his life, Solomon went away from the light of God. It happened to David as well. [quote]Also, the Old Testament repeatedly has references to God saying that fathers will not pass their sins to their children, but he constantly punishes entire nations and subsequent generations for the actions of a few.[/quote] Source? [quote]I'm still reading through it and only up to the book of Isaiah, but there's been a lot of stuff which doesn't make sense so far...[/quote] I am open to any and ever question you have.

to make sense of the OT, u need to separate all the books by different categories (like northern or southern Israel, by prophet, or by century) then, where applicable, compare each book (or collection of books) to other ancient 'near east' or semitic texts..this is the only way for a westerner to make sense of the OT in terms of authors' intentions/content/meaning/purpose. grabbing a history book will help too, for books like chronicles and kings.

[quote]to make sense of the OT, u need to separate all the books by different categories (like northern or southern Israel, by prophet, or by century) then, where applicable, compare each book (or collection of books) to other ancient 'near east' or semitic texts..this is the only way for a westerner to make sense of the OT in terms of authors' intentions/content/meaning/purpose. grabbing a history book will help too, for books like chronicles and kings.[/quote] Have you done that? If so, can you make sense of the blatant hypocrisies that I pointed out? If not, how do you know that reading all these other texts (which [i]aren't[/i] from the words of God) will help the understanding of the Bible? Saying "welllllll, you won't [i]really[/i] understand the Bible until you chop it up into this specific way and then also use these other texts to compare all this" seems like a cop out.

its not a cop out at all, the similarities u find will b striking and enlightening. its a huge undertaking that scholars do and they write articles and books that put it into layman terms. its necessary because without doing that, we modern folks would have no idea how to read the OT. heres a few examples (but theres hundreds). ancient semitic peoples argued the origins of humanity which was important to justify their own religions and so interpretation of god (interpreting god was a million times more important back then than today)..texts existed (like the sumerian king list) which stated humans come from god and all the time periods of the successive dynasties..well the ancient would-be-jews argued they r descendants of god, having been created by Him..so, to reject the sumerian king list, they created the descendants of adam, which is y the ages r so big - theyre paralleling & trumping the former sumerian dynasties. another is the formatting choice for the text structuring the creation of the world in genesis 1-3..i was not able to find my book of comparisons but u can google "creation accounts ancient near east texts" or "ancient near east texts like genesis" and should find similar books (they compare primary sources side by side)..in short, ancient creation myths claimed certain things like creation/humans were bad, dualism, polytheism, divinity resided in creation, etc..Gen 1-3 rejects and "rectifies" all that by asserting a new, monotheistic view of god and world where creation is good..a creation text that was well known back then was formatted the way gen1 is, so the author of gen1 structured the text exactly like the other creation account, replacing certain words at the beginning and end of lines. turns out, genesis' purpose was to refute a well known and dominant text that asserted gods blending with creation and polytheism, not to simply convey a message on its own accord. in the ancient world, to "trump" ur opponent, u patterned ur text like theirs and replaced certain "truths."

[quote]its not a cop out at all, the similarities u find will b striking and enlightening. its a huge undertaking that scholars do and they write articles and books that put it into layman terms. its necessary because without doing that, we modern folks would have no idea how to read the OT. heres a few examples (but theres hundreds). ancient semitic peoples argued the origins of humanity which was important to justify their own religions and so interpretation of god (interpreting god was a million times more important back then than today)..texts existed (like the sumerian king list) which stated humans come from god and all the time periods of the successive dynasties..well the ancient would-be-jews argued they r descendants of god, having been created by Him..so, to reject the sumerian king list, they created the descendants of adam, which is y the ages r so big - theyre paralleling & trumping the former sumerian dynasties. another is the formatting choice for the text structuring the creation of the world in genesis 1-3..i was not able to find my book of comparisons but u can google "creation accounts ancient near east texts" or "ancient near east texts like genesis" and should find similar books (they compare primary sources side by side)..in short, ancient creation myths claimed certain things like creation/humans were bad, dualism, polytheism, divinity resided in creation, etc..Gen 1-3 rejects and "rectifies" all that by asserting a new, monotheistic view of god and world where creation is good..a creation text that was well known back then was formatted the way gen1 is, so the author of gen1 structured the text exactly like the other creation account, replacing certain words at the beginning and end of lines. turns out, genesis' purpose was to refute a well known and dominant text that asserted gods blending with creation and polytheism, not to simply convey a message on its own accord. in the ancient world, to "trump" ur opponent, u patterned ur text like theirs and replaced certain "truths."[/quote] Ok, but all that just seems like more of a "history is written by the victors" thing. One people came up with a theory and killed off the people who promoted a different theory, and thus the victors' theory prevailed. That's great and all, but I've been asking about the teachings in the Bible and their hypocrisy, not necessarily how those thoughts came to be. I'm well aware women were viewed more as objects back in those days and that's likely why the Bible is so male-centric. I'm looking for religious reasons why these mindsets exist, not necessarily what caused the people who wrote them to feel that way. The Bible is supposed to be the center of the Christian religion (and be nigh infallible) yet there are tons of inconsistencies even within its own text. I'm looking for a Christian explanation; I'm not really interested in how the humans back then were flawed... I'm well aware of the fact that the culture back then was far different from how it is now.

male centric? like the all male priesthood? or only men being numbered in armies? i dont kno if religion alone answers those questions, that may also b a blend of historical and philosophical inquiries. regarding inconsistencies in OT texts, i dont see any other method in position to even begin addressing them other than exegesis..u mentioned something w Job? how it doesnt match other OT verses? Job is not uniquely Judeo-Christian, it has traceable roots to ancient Egypt and possibly further..it actually was more an early philosophical reflection than religious/revelation; there were ancient Egyptian sects who possessed monotheistic views..an exegesis of Job may shed light on its inclusion in the OT. and did u mention elsewhere that god does not punish generations but does punish generations in other verses?

[quote]male centric? like the all male priesthood? or only men being numbered in armies? i dont kno if religion alone answers those questions, that may also b a blend of historical and philosophical inquiries. regarding inconsistencies in OT texts, i dont see any other method in position to even begin addressing them other than exegesis..u mentioned something w Job? how it doesnt match other OT verses? Job is not uniquely Judeo-Christian, it has traceable roots to ancient Egypt and possibly further..it actually was more an early philosophical reflection than religious/revelation; there were ancient Egyptian sects who possessed monotheistic views..an exegesis of Job may shed light on its inclusion in the OT. and did u mention elsewhere that god does not punish generations but does punish generations in other verses?[/quote] In regard to the women comment, my question pertains to certain books such as the book of Proverbs where Solomon repeatedly condemns actions of "strange" women and also admonishes women who argue with men (claiming it's better to live in the woods than to live with such a woman). This same man was described [i]by the Bible[/i] as having eventually turned away from God because of the words of a woman. It's even more comical as King David is revered as a very important figure, yet Solomon (the extremely wise king) abhors adultery, yet David committed adultery with his various wives with a woman in some war (can't remember her name). In reference to the inconsistencies I see between books like Job and Psalms, I understand that these books have varying origins, but does the Christian religion [i]not[/i] hold the Bible up as an infallible explanation of Christianity? If that's the case I'd expect these inconsistencies to be explained [i]within the confines of the religion[/i]. If the explanation is that "well, these books were altered from other religions/cultures" then that contradicts the idea that these are explanations from Christianity. To your last point, yes, the Bible frequently mentions the Lord's covenant with Moses that says the sins of the father will not pass to the sons, but then God frequently goes on to damn entire populations for transgressions and He also frequently destroys the future of households for transgressions of a single man.

[quote]...the book of Proverbs where Solomon repeatedly condemns...[/quote] im sorry to say but Solomon most likely did not author biblical texts, similar to how Moses most likely did not author texts..it is, however, most likely that the author was a scribe of Solomon..this was a high "dynasty" period for ancient Israel so Solomon would b praised..proverbs is theological teaching most likely from a religious/pro Solomon figure. [quote]This same man was described [i]by the Bible[/i] as having eventually turned away from God because of the words of a woman.[/quote] im not at my computer now so cannot look up verses/OT books..however i am aware of changing of hats, so to speak, in the historical books..for example, pro Solomon texts were probably written at high dynasty period and originated in southern Israel, from his court; anti Solomon texts, or those condemning him, were most likely written in exile/post-exile where new religious leaders tried preached against lustful actions or sin..it was common back then to compile new books to correct the old, and so record new understandings of the faith. [quote]It's even more comical as King David is revered as a very important figure, yet Solomon (the extremely wise king) abhors adultery, yet David committed adultery with his various wives with a woman in some war (can't remember her name).[/quote] Solomon probably was far worse in committing adultery than David.."david's sin" is magnified for some prominence he's attributed with (i forget exactly, maybe its a symbolic time of israel's most success)..neways, the kingship was important no less, despite human nature being fallible..David too would b portrayed as a sinner later down the historical books because authorship did not originate within his court. [quote]In reference to the inconsistencies I see between books like Job and Psalms...does the Christian religion [i]not[/i] hold the Bible up as an infallible explanation of Christianity? If that's the case I'd expect these inconsistencies to be explained [i]within the confines of the religion[/i]. If the explanation is that "well, these books were altered from other religions/cultures" then that contradicts the idea that these are explanations from Christianity.[/quote] Christianity is a huge -blam!-ed up world, in all honesty..different churches, sects of scholars, etc. approach the Bible differently..for me, the Bible does not & cannot explain every nook & cranny of what Christianity is or how it judges on matters..infallibility of scripture is probably best thought of as "verses that r guaranteed free of error in matters pertaining to the highest truths"..so, david's sin may b important for teaching christian morals but not necessarily the best place to assert infallibility - a fundamentalist would b horrified at my statement, whereas i see more christological verses as infallible, as in st paul, "in god we live and move and have our being," to me, this is an application of infallibility because nothing exists outside of god. Christianity assumes a creator worldview where said creator permits beings to enjoy their own nature; the natural & supernatural do not contradict one another or r at odds (unless sin is committed)..so if Job was originally a philosophical inquiry, then ancient would-be-jews saw no problem with adopting the text, because it demonstrated that humans outside the covenant can relate to god in the most universal, human ways while those inside the covenant related to god additionally with revelation in a religious context; Job was evidence for a monotheistic god. [quote]...the Bible frequently mentions the Lord's covenant with Moses that says the sins of the father will not pass to the sons, but then God frequently goes on to damn entire populations for transgressions and He also frequently destroys the future of households for transgressions of a single man.[/quote] do u kno what books r in conflict? or verses within a book? a pragmatic explanation can b authors from the north and south feuding with one another..honestly, the OT is not a cohesive unit like the NT..the NT had different authors as well but were largely more united in their purpose than the countless number of authors of the OT.

I've a question for you... From what perspective are you saying all this from? In other words are you a Christian telling me this as a Christian? Are you an atheist telling me the historical background of the Bible? I'm just confused because you seem to be telling me the historical background of these texts, but the historical nature of it is going to inherently be devoid of the religious content. I appreciate the historical perspective and all; its just that I've just been discussing the content of the Bible as a more standalone story. I know the Bible didn't just materialize in its present form or anything; I completely understand that several historical factors probably shaped the various chapters/verses in their own way. That said, the collection of the Bible is supposed to have a significant meaning to the Christian faith. I consider myself a Christian (and am not really looking to debate the existence of God because that's just not a debate I'm interested in) and so I'm reading through the Bible to educate myself more about the faith. So far it's filled with a [i]lot[/i] of hypocrisy and contradictions so I'm confused as to why that's the case [i]in a religious context[/i], not so much a historical one. I also don't like taking individual verses from the Bible because they're said from within a context, so I prefer to keep them that way. I appreciate the discussion and perspective, of course; I'm just not sure we're on the same page.

Well i was raised with a Catholic background but i also studied history, and im sad to say here, history does explain much of the scriptures' coming into existence..but i think i better understand what you're saying: (1) you're reading the bible chiefly concerned with faith-based teachings in mind and (2) you want answers from a strictly religious perspective. well, since Christianity is so big, maybe u can look into how different faiths/churches define notions like the infallibility of scripture, scripture being under the inspiration of the holy spirit, and to what extent is divine revelation applied to scripture..this comes to mind first, because it begins to separate the important stuff from the not so important stuff imo. other than that, i probably can't contribute more to this discussion..if u sense hypocrisy in the scriptures, the easiest answer ever given me was: the bible contains truths in varying degrees, yet reveals only the highest truths, which the faith cannot reject. Back then, humans misinterpreted God, or interpreted Him imperfectly at best. Christ was/is the perfect image/portrayal of God, which humans can still misinterpret. Why not look into biblical commentaries, maybe they provide religious interpretations of scripture?