Biblical Cruelty and Marital Madness?
"One of the strangest of all biblical ordeals was that of a woman suspected of adultery (called a sotah in Hebrew). The procedure is described in graphic detail in the Book of Numbers 5:11‑31. Here the suspicions of a jealous husband may be proved or disproved by giving his wife a mixture of sacred water, earth from the floor of the Tabernacle, and the script of curses, and by observing the results of this ministration. If the woman had defiled herself by entering into an adulterous relationship with another man, the Bible states that her body would distend and she would become a curse among her people. But if the woman was not guilty, then she would remain unharmed and able to retain seed. Ordeals of jealousy were known in the ancient Near East, although not in the precise form described in the Book of Numbers, and there were parallels in many other cultures..." (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/).
What is the underline purpose of such madness? Is it anyway this law is beneficial to the wife whose husband suspects her of adultery? Do you find this scenario too strange for the Bible and inhuman, in practice? Can one make sense out of this "apparent nonsense"? CM
Comments
-
The IVP Background Commentary offers this:
"...the procedure in this text invokes neither magic nor danger but simply creates a situation for God to respond to. Thus the woman here is presumed innocent until circumstances (directed by the Lord) show otherwise."
Seems like this was a protection for women from an accusing husband or frenzied mob of accusing people. In a case where guilt could be really hard or impossible to determine--that case was ritually turned over asking God to intervene. God apparently honored the system--it being His idea. The method described in Num 5 distances the woman from the normal death penalty, yet takes the matter seriously.
I can imagine a woman who knew her innocence would place her faith in God and live free of the implications of false accusations all her life--vindicated by God himself. What a joy and relief for her and all women!
-
Without giving it too much thought, I always assumed if the woman was guilty she would develop a psychosomatic illness.
-
@C_M_ said:
"One of the strangest of all biblical ordeals was that of a woman suspected of adultery (called a sotah in Hebrew). ...What is the underline purpose of such madness? Is it anyway this law is beneficial to the wife whose husband suspects her of adultery? Do you find this scenario too strange for the Bible and inhuman, in practice? Can one make sense out of this "apparent nonsense"? CM
Thanks for calling our attention to this practice, CM, a practice which I believe is a product of the patriarchal (and perhaps misogynistic) times in which it arose. Some observations about the passage:
- Husbands appear to have unrestricted access to the procedure. Any time a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, he may take her to the priest - along with the appropriate grain offerings - for the administration of the bitter water test. (Number 5.14) Obviously, women married to men prone to jealousy risked, through no fault of their own, repeated trips to the priest and ingestion of dirty water.
- I know of no analogous procedure in the Bible by which women are empowered to adjudicate their suspicions about their husbands' marital faithfulness.
- The procedure as defined in the text provides no consequences to husbands whose suspicions the dirty water test judges to be groundless. In fact, the text ends with explicit exoneration of husbands who test their wives' marital fidelity. (Numbers 5.31)
In my view, the test established in Numbers 14 is another example of patriarchy's painful and regrettable influence in the Bible. It was not of God then, and it is not of God today.
-
As I understand, you say you believe the Bible is not truth. You say the Bible is wrong. You say you do not believe the Bible to be God's Truth. Yet you flail about frantically if anyone says so. Cute. Well, there you said it yourself right out in front of God and everybody.
Why don't you just man-up and just admit what you really believe, be honest with yourself--or perhaps you are still on the journey of coming to believe?
Unless you believe the Bible to be God's Truth an inerrant, I can't image why you would bother to argue from it. You may be lying or trying to deceive others, or maybe trying to come to honest personal belief?
-
> @GaoLu said:
> As I understand, you say you believe the Bible is not truth. You say the Bible is wrong. You say you do not believe the Bible to be God's Truth. Yet you flail about frantically if anyone says so. Cute. Well, there you said it yourself right out in front of God and everybody.
>
> Why don't you just man-up and just admit what you really believe, be honest with yourself--or perhaps you are still on the journey of coming to believe?
>
> Unless you believe the Bible to be God's Truth an inerrant, I can't image why you would bother to argue from it. You may be lying or trying to deceive others, or maybe trying to come to honest personal belief?
I responded to the subject matter CM raised in this thread's OP, just as in a previous post you responded to the subject matter CM raised in this thread's OP.
By now, it should not surprise either of us that we disagree on the issue of the Bible's inerrancy. I'm guessing that neither is either of us surprised by the fact that you continue to criticize me and my view of the Bible's inerrancy, even when biblical inerrancy and I are not the subjects of the threads in which you post your criticisms.
If you have comments or questions about the content of my analysis of the Numbers 5 passage - the actual topic of this thread - I will welcome and likely respond to them. If you wish to continue your Quixotic quest against me and my views about the Bible, you will have the thread to yourself. -
Gentlemen,
To keep the purity of this thread, I have taken the liberty to start a new one entitled: "The Bible: Errancy, Inerrancy or Something in Between?" Please work out your differences there. I will contribute as usual. Peace, Order, and Blessings. CM
-
> @C_M_ said:
> Gentlemen,
>
> To keep the purity of this thread, I have taken the liberty to start a new one entitled: "The Bible: Errancy, Inerrancy or Something in Between?" Please work out your differences there. I will contribute as usual. Peace, Order, and Blessings. CM
Thanks for creating the new thread, CM.
I assure you that it was my intention to post solely about the Numbers 5 passage to which you referred in the OP of this thread. -
The new thread is helpful. I do point out and probably will do so on future occasion, respectfully I hope, that you Bill argue from the Bible, which you do not believe to be true. I find that disingenuous.
If you participate in discourse (and I hope you do--I find your views informative and helpful), and if you frequently argue against what the Bible says, then I think in fairness another perspective should be available--that the Bible is true and trustworthy as it is. I think readers, myself included, should be reminded of your dangerous unorthodox stand on the Bible as Truth. What you argue is valid, authentic, from your heart, well-presented and valuable; but it is also very far from removed from what most Christians believe and know of God and the Gospel. That fact in my view needs to be revisited at critical junctures. I probably will continue to do so. Expect it.
In fairness, I invite you to point out at any juncture you feel critical that I do, in fact, believe the Bible, read it to be true, factual and the authentic revealed heart of God without error. I am not ashamed of that and not angered or put off by anyone pointing it out to any audience when relevant to my views on a topic.
I do hope we can stay on topic---just keeping the perspectives presented truthful and in balance.
-
@GaoLu said:
I do hope we can stay on topic---just keeping the perspectives presented truthful and in balance.Excellent. I look forward to your next comments on the Numbers 5 passage that is the topic of this thread.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I do hope we can stay on topic---just keeping the perspectives presented truthful and in balance.Excellent. I look forward to your next comments on the Numbers 5 passage that is the topic of this thread.
Do you have any response to what I already offered?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, the test established in Numbers 14 is another example of patriarchy's painful and regrettable influence in the Bible. It was not of God then, and it is not of God today.In other words, you are saying the inspired writer of Num 14 was inspired by God to include the description of an ungodly practice in his God-inspired text?
Sort of like the inspired writer of Gen including the lie spoken by the serpent in his God-inspired narrative of what happened in the garden?
If that were the case, what would be the purpose of the inclusion of this ungodly practice in the text in Num 14? Suspicious would also be that there seems to be no indication in the God-inspired text itself which would identify this passage as an ungodly practice that should normally be condemned ? -
@GaoLu said:
Do you have any response to what I already offered?The way I read your first post in this thread, you view the dirty water ingestion test in Numbers 5 as God's provision of protection for women from groundless spousal or "frenzied mob" accusations of marital infidelity (it's worth noting that the Numbers 5 passage makes provision only for husbands' concerns; it contains no mechanism for the "frenzied mobs" to which you made reference in your first post).
The problem, in my view, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, is that nothing protected women from the dirty water ingestion test itself, while men WERE protected from the test, at least to my reading of the Bible. I know of no Scriptural reference to a comparable test to which women could subject their husbands were the women suspicious of their husbands' fidelity.
As a result, women apparently had no option to refuse to submit to the dirty water test, and those the test judged guilty of infidelity, according to the Numbers passage, suffered physical pain - perhaps also infertility - and consequences in the community (to become "a curse among (their) people" - Numbers 5.27). But married men? They seem to have faced no similar test, and no consequences for making false accusations against their wives.
You view the dirty water test as God's provision for women. I view it as a medically unwise and procedurally unfair introduction of a foreign substance into women's bodies. That women had no access to similar adjudication of their concerns about their spouses' fidelity, that they could not refuse to submit to the test, and that as described, the test imposed no consequences on men who made false accusations, all lead me to conclude that the test was not of God.
In your first response to my take on the Numbers 5 passage, you gave no response to the content of my take on Numbers 5 passage, choosing instead to use your post to criticize me and my view of biblical inerrancy. If you respond to this post, I hope you will engage the substance of my passage analysis - for example, am I correct that there is no comparable test in Scripture by which women could litigate their suspicions of their husbands' fidelity? - in addition to any repetition you choose to offer of your objections to me and/or my understanding of the Bible.
-
In reflection upon this passage, Num 5:11-31, it regulates a husband who suspects that his wife has committed adultery brings her to the priest.
1. The priest takes water and places dust from the floor of the sanctuary in it.
2. Then, pronounces and writes a curse against the wife and washes the written words into the water.
3. The wife pronounces an oath and drinks the water.
4. If she is guilty her abdomen will swell and she will most likely become infertile.
5. other details in the text is difficult to interpret.Many see this text as a trial by ordeal which was common in the ancient world. Strange as it may have been; it was to determine guilt or innocence by divine intervention.
However, in the case of the suspected adulterer, the penalty was stipulated by God Himself. So, some scholars don't see it as an ordeal, but prefer to call it a "dramatized oath." In view of this, one look to the law to determine its real intentions.
Believe it or not, the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
In other words, you are saying the inspired writer of Num 14 was inspired by God to include the description of an ungodly practice in his God-inspired text?This is a profound question, one which deserves far more treatment that I have the time to give it.
For the reasons I laid out in two other posts in this thread, I believe the dirty water test as described in Numbers 5 was ungodly. My view of biblical inspiration does not require every verse of every passage to come from directly - or accurately - from God. In my view, the writer of the Numbers 5 passage very likely genuinely believed that he or she was quoting God accurately, when the truth was he or she was not.
Something quite similar happened, I think, in the OT passages in which God gave explicit commands that Israel commit genocide. In my view, genocide is a sin of which God has never been capable. SOMETHING went wrong in the transmission process that led to the inclusion of those commands in the Bible.
I think I am on firmer theological ground struggling with the meaning of biblical inspiration than I am accepting that God once - but no longer - supported genocide, slavery, or the patriarchal domination of men over women. As a result, I have to figure out what it means for me that the Bible is "inspired" when I also think it contains errors. That's a challenge. But those who believe the Bible is inerrant have to figure out how a God who does not change once embraced, even commanded, conduct they believe is now ungodly.
Sort of like the inspired writer of Gen including the lie spoken by the serpent in his God-inspired narrative of what happened in the garden?
I don't see a connection between the serpent's comments in the Garden story and the issues of divine inspiration regarding the Numbers 5 passage. Please say some more.
If that were the case, what would be the purpose of the inclusion of this ungodly practice in the text in Num 14? Suspicious would also be that there seems to be no indication in the God-inspired text itself which would identify this passage as an ungodly practice that should normally be condemned ?
As I reported above, I think the author of the Numbers 5 text likely believed that he or she was accurately quoting God, so I don't expect the text to identify the conduct as ungodly. I think instead that the author got God wrong on the issue of that test.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, the test established in Numbers 14 is another example of patriarchy's painful and regrettable influence in the Bible. It was not of God then, and it is not of God today.In other words, you are saying the inspired writer of Num 14 was inspired by God to include the description of an ungodly practice in his God-inspired text?
Sort of like the inspired writer of Gen including the lie spoken by the serpent in his God-inspired narrative of what happened in the garden?
If that were the case, what would be the purpose of the inclusion of this ungodly practice in the text in Num 14? Suspicious would also be that there seems to be no indication in the God-inspired text itself which would identify this passage as an ungodly practice that should normally be condemned?"Slow down"! the answers to your questions are in the Bible. It speaks for itself. As readers of the Word and live its principles, we must constantly keep the purpose of the Bible in view and read out of the text and not into it. This is important and must be an intentional practice each time of every passage. If not, we will become blinded by finite intellect, knowledge, and human reasoning.
May I suggest you give the PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE a review for a better understanding of Num 5:11-31, passage? For example:
The Bible was inspired by God. That is the whole Bible was inspired by God (2 Tim 3:15-17). The Bible is not an ordinary book. It is:
- (1) God's own word (Ps 119:1; Jer 30:1-2; Luke 8:21).
- (2) A testimony about God (John 5:39).
- (3) A book preserved by the very God (Prov30:5, 6);
- (4) A complete book (Rev 22:18-19).
The Bible was written because sin blocked the face-to-face communication between God and mankind (Gen 3:8; Isa 59:1-2). The complete story of the human fall comprises the three first chapters of Genesis.
The purpose of the Bible is not to convey merely moral values, but above all to bring us into contact with its divine Author.
- The Bible is, first of all, a disclosure of God Himself and His love for us.
- The Bible, in all its stories and genre of writings, is to prepare people to live in a perfect world (2 Tim 3:15-17).
- The Bible is not to provide the raw material for erecting a theological edifice, but for the community of faith to seek to discern the Spirit’s voice through the appropriated text.
No man can truly understand the true meaning of the text unless he or she has a comprehensive understanding of "the overall plan and purpose of the book" from which the text has been selected. The text is to be interpreted in harmony with the general theme of the book. To interpret a certain passage of the Bible, one must keep in mind the theme and purpose of the Bible, that is, the salvation of fallen human beings. The central theme of the Bible is God's salvation of human beings (1 Pet 1:10- 12; Rom 1:16) through Christ (John 5:39).
To fully grasp Num 5 and 14, demands the study of ancient cultures. I know what I am suggesting is not new, but it's something we have to do. A statement was brought to my attention recently:
- "The Bible was not written to introduce us to an ancient people with seemingly strange ways. It was written to introduce us to the ways of God Himself. But we live so far away from the people in the Bible, both in distance and in time, that we are puzzled and confused by certain elements that were neither puzzling nor confusing to the writers themselves or to their earliest readers." [Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper's Encyclopedia of Bible Life, paperback ed. rev. Boyce M. Bennett Jr., and David H. Scott (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 1]
Let's not confuse the scraps of human intellectual reasonings for the juicy substance of divine revelation on our exegetical study desk. There is more to God's Word than what we are capable of understanding and at first, and in deep study. Let us be humbled and pray for illumination of God's revelation to humanity. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
For the reasons I laid out in two other posts in this thread, I believe the dirty water test as described in Numbers 5 was ungodly. My view of biblical inspiration does not require every verse of every passage to come from directly - or accurately - from God. In my view, the writer of the Numbers 5 passage very likely genuinely believed that he or she was quoting God accurately, when the truth was he or she was not.So the writer FALSELY believed to be inspired by God, when he was actually not inspired by God?
... In my view, genocide is a sin of which God has never been capable. SOMETHING went wrong in the transmission process that led to the inclusion of those commands in the Bible.
If something in the inspiration process itself went wrong, then the passage was not really inspired but we have "the wrong text", which rightfully should not be said to have been inspired.
Sort of like the inspired writer of Gen including the lie spoken by the serpent in his God-inspired narrative of what happened in the garden?
I don't see a connection between the serpent's comments in the Garden story and the issues of divine inspiration regarding the Numbers 5 passage. Please say some more.
My point was this: The Bible text in Gen 3 contains a lie ("thou shalt not surely die").
These words are actually NOT inspired by God, in the sense that God inspired the serpect to say them. They are the serpent's own words.
However, these words are part of the Bible text inspired by God in the sense that the writer of Genesis was inspired by God to include these words of this lie of the serpent in the God-inspired text of Gen 3.If that were the case, what would be the purpose of the inclusion of this ungodly practice in the text in Num 14? Suspicious would also be that there seems to be no indication in the God-inspired text itself which would identify this passage as an ungodly practice that should normally be condemned ?
As I reported above, I think the author of the Numbers 5 text likely believed that he or she was accurately quoting God, so I don't expect the text to identify the conduct as ungodly. I think instead that the author got God wrong on the issue of that test.
In other words, this passage does NOT accurately tell what God would have inspired the writer to write, and this passage of the Bible text would therefore NOT be God inspired, so that the Bible as a whole could also not be said to have been inspired by God either.
-
@C_M_ said:
In reflection upon this passage, Num 5:11-31, it regulates a husband who suspects that his wife has committed adultery brings her to the priest.To my reading of the text, CM, it regulates how a man litigates his concerns about his wife's marital fidelity, BUT ALSO how women are to be punished for infidelity revealed by the dirty water test.
Believe it or not, the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband. CM
I'm curious: Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband?
In my view, the passage begins with reference to women whose infidelity no one witnessed (Numbers 5.12-13) then continues with consideration of a process by which husbands can process their jealousy (Numbers 5.14-15). After a description of an approach to infidelity discernment that compels women's participation (Numbers 5.24) those judged not guilty are free to conceive children, and the men who issued false accusations face no consequences (Numbers 5.31). The passage's final verse highlights the stark difference between men's and women's respective burdens of iniquity.
As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern.
-
Gentlemen,
It's not our place to say what word (s) or passage is inspired. To do so is to show a lack of acceptance of the Inspired Word. It's a dangerous practice in professing to "rightly dividing the Word of truth." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Bible writers were under inspiration (using their knowledge, words, language,etc.). They were God's "penmen" and not his pen. CM -
@Wolfgang said:
So the writer FALSELY believed to be inspired by God, when he was actually not inspired by God?The extent to which the writer of the Numbers 5 passage believed his or her words were products of divine inspiration is not clear to me.
That said, I think writers of biblical texts likely believed they were communicating truth. But human beings that they were, their beliefs were subject to error. For example, some writers clearly believed God ordered Israel to commit genocide. Were they right? If so, is genocide something God commands nations to use today? The God I know could NEVER have ordered genocide, so I conclude those writers were wrong. My understanding of divine inspiration of human beings allows for errors... due to the involvement of human beings.
If something in the inspiration process itself went wrong, then the passage was not really inspired but we have "the wrong text", which rightfully should not be said to have been inspired.
We may well disagree as to the meaning and reach of divine inspiration. I believe God can inspire human action, but that human involvement in that action subjects it to error. I also believe human beings can, in good faith, wrongly discern the word God has for them and/or their times (e.g. biblical witness as to genocide, slavery, and the relative power/authority of men and women).
My point was this: The Bible text in Gen 3 contains a lie ("thou shalt not surely die").
These words are actually NOT inspired by God, in the sense that God inspired the serpect to say them. They are the serpent's own words.
However, these words are part of the Bible text inspired by God in the sense that the writer of Genesis was inspired by God to include these words of this lie of the serpent in the God-inspired text of Gen 3.If your point is that God-inspired biblical content can accurately quote the falsehoods spoken by the characters of that content, then I agree.
In other words, this passage does NOT accurately tell what God would have inspired the writer to write, and this passage of the Bible text would therefore NOT be God inspired, so that the Bible as a whole could also not be said to have been inspired by God either.
Again, you and I likely disagree as to the meaning and reach of the concept of biblical inspiration. I believe the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, but that such inspiration does NOT preclude it from containing errors, principally because humans were involved.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Again, you and I likely disagree as to the meaning and reach of the concept of biblical inspiration. I believe the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, but that such inspiration does NOT preclude it from containing errors, principally because humans were involved.If I communicate something and inspire someone to write it, we would only have my inspired text IF the person doesn't screw up or misunderstand, etc. what I inspired them to write. IF they write something which I did not inspire them to write, we would not have what I inspired, but we would have what the person actually sort of "inspired themselves" to write.
Seems to me that I have not much of a clue what you understand the word "inspire" and "inspiration" to mean? Does "inspire" mean to you the same as "motivate" or "encourage" to do something, but it has nothing to do with WHAT (the content) actually is to be said, written, done, etc ....?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
That said, I think writers of biblical texts likely believed they were communicating truth. But human beings that they were, their beliefs were subject to error. For example, some writers clearly believed God ordered Israel to commit genocide. Were they right? If so, is genocide something God commands nations to use today? The God I know could NEVER have ordered genocide, so I conclude those writers were wrong. My understanding of divine inspiration of human beings allows for errors... due to the involvement of human beings.
Again, you and I likely disagree as to the meaning and reach of the concept of biblical inspiration. I believe the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, but that such inspiration does NOT preclude it from containing errors, principally because humans were involved.
Bro. Bill Coley,
Am I seeing this for myself? Don't you believe the Bible is fully inspired? Are you questioning the full inspiration of the Bible? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either do or you don't?If you don't, you are practicing out of the playbook of the eighteenth century Enlightenment period. "Higher Criticism of the Bible" led some skeptics to question the full inspiration and trustworthiness of Scriptures. The overwhelming majority of Bible-believing Christians at that time followed this "plain sense" method of interpreting the Bible. It appears to me, this is where you are. Please, say that I am wrong and misunderstood you. I remain. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Am I seeing this for myself? Don't you believe the Bible is fully inspired? Are you questioning the full inspiration of the Bible? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either do or you don't?I have two responses to your post, CM.
The first is that in other posts I have tried to make clear my view of the Bible's inspiration - essentially, that I believe the Bible is both inspired AND not inerrant. If I understand your post correctly - i.e. if "full" means inerrant - then I don't accept the "full inspiration of the Bible."
If you don't, you are practicing out of the playbook of the eighteenth century Enlightenment period. "Higher Criticism of the Bible" led some skeptics to question the full inspiration and trustworthiness of Scriptures. The overwhelming majority of Bible-believing Christians at that time followed this "plain sense" method of interpreting the Bible. It appears to me, this is where you are. Please, say that I am wrong and misunderstood you. I remain. CM
I am an advocate of "higher criticism." In my view, it is a by-product of loving God with all our minds. My embrace of academic, as well as faith-based, scrutiny of Scripture, is for me akin to my passion for the scientific method, which describes the origins and nature of the earth and universe in ways that, in the view of many Christians, contradicts the Bible. I believe both science and the Bible are "true," but their truths are sufficiently different as to preclude contradiction between them.
My second response to your post, CM, is that it does not address any aspect of the content of my previous posts on the Numbers 5 passage, or the question I posed to you in a previous post:
@Bill_Coley said:
Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband? ... As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern.I hope you will address my question as directly as I addressed yours.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
Am I seeing this for myself? Don't you believe the Bible is fully inspired? Are you questioning the full inspiration of the Bible? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either do or you don't?I have two responses to your post, CM.
The first is that in other posts I have tried to make clear my view of the Bible's inspiration - essentially, that I believe the Bible is both inspired AND not inerrant. If I understand your post correctly - i.e. if "full" means inerrant - then I don't accept the "full inspiration of the Bible."
If you don't, you are practicing out of the playbook of the eighteenth century Enlightenment period. "Higher Criticism of the Bible" led some skeptics to question the full inspiration and trustworthiness of Scriptures. The overwhelming majority of Bible-believing Christians at that time followed this "plain sense" method of interpreting the Bible. It appears to me, this is where you are. Please, say that I am wrong and misunderstood you. I remain. CM
I am an advocate of "higher criticism." In my view, it is a by-product of loving God with all our minds. My embrace of academic, as well as faith-based, scrutiny of Scripture, is for me akin to my passion for the scientific method, which describes the origins and nature of the earth and universe in ways that, in the view of many Christians, contradicts the Bible. I believe both science and the Bible are "true," but their truths are sufficiently different as to preclude contradiction between them.
In short, Bill only believes the Bible if it agrees with secular humanist thinking and science that seeks to eliminate God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
In short, Bill only believes the Bible if it agrees with secular humanist thinking and science that seeks to eliminate God.In short, David, no. Your summary of my view is incorrect.
But I would welcome your engagement with the Numbers 5 text that is the subject of this thread. For example, are you aware of a Bible passage that sets out a comparable process for women to litigate their concerns about their husbands' fidelity?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
In short, Bill only believes the Bible if it agrees with secular humanist thinking and science that seeks to eliminate God.In short, David, no. Your summary of my view is incorrect.
You can say my summary is incorrect all you want but that is just words. Your substance over the many years you and I have gone back and forth prove very much otherwise.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You can say my summary is incorrect all you want but that is just words. Your substance over the many years you and I have gone back and forth prove very much otherwise.You have made clear your view of my view of the Bible, David. But my view of the Bible is not the subject of this thread; Numbers 5.11-31 is. Do you have any comments on that passage, the marital fidelity test it describes, and/or the comments other posters have made about the passage?
-
In spite of adamant denial without reason, earlier assessments have been affirmed by Bill's own words.
-
@GaoLu said:
In spite of adamant denial without reason, earlier assessments have been affirmed by Bill's own words.And you, also, Gao Lu, have made clear your view of my view of the Bible. But as I indicated to David, my view of the Bible is not the subject of this thread; Numbers 5.11-31 is.
Earlier in this thread, you asked for my response to your lone on-topic post about the Numbers passage, a response I quickly provided. Do you have any response to that particular post of mine?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The first is that in other posts I have tried to make clear my view of the Bible's inspiration - essentially, that I believe the Bible is both inspired AND not inerrant. If I understand your post correctly - i.e. if "full" means inerrant - then I don't accept the "full inspiration of the Bible."
I am an advocate of "higher criticism." In my view, it is a by-product of loving God with all our minds. My embrace of academic, as well as faith-based, scrutiny of Scripture, is for me akin to my passion for the scientific method, which describes the origins and nature of the earth and universe in ways that, in the view of many Christians, contradicts the Bible. I believe both science and the Bible are "true," but their truths are sufficiently different as to preclude contradiction between them.
I really think we need to define some terms to make further exchanges meaningful. e.g. "inerrant", "Bible inspiration", "higher criticism" and "scrutiny of Scripture, is for me akin to my passion for the scientific method, which describes the origins and nature of the earth and universe". This last point, by whose authority? CM
My second response to your post, CM, is that it does not address any aspect of the content of my previous posts on the Numbers 5 passage, or the question I posed to you in a previous post:
@Bill_Coley said:
Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband? ... As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern.I haven't forgotten. The stage, unfortunately, is set that you will be dissatisfied and a fruitless exercise. However, let's get clear on the terms. CM
I hope you will address my question as directly as I addressed yours.
Yes, I will. I don't know the effectiveness of our exchanges given your statement above. CM
-
You ask for definition of some terms. We will get to those, but first I ask for closure on the question I asked, but you still haven't addressed.
@C_M_ said:
I haven't forgotten. The stage, unfortunately, is set that you will be dissatisfied and a fruitless exercise. However, let's get clear on the terms. CMThe question I asked you about the Numbers 5 passage had nothing to do with any of the terms whose definitions you seek. In response to your assertion that "...the primary role of the law behind Num 5:11-31, was to protect the wife's rights and dignity; more so, than the rights of the husband," I asked...
"Where in the text do you find that concern for the wife's rights and dignity is more central than the rights of the husband? ... As a result, I don't see concern for the wife's rights and dignity as a primary concern of the passage. I hope you'll help me identify that concern."
Neither the definition of the Bible's "inspiration," nor of its inerrancy, nor of "higher criticism," nor of "scrutiny of Scripture," nor the nature of my passion for the "scientific method" have any bearing on that question, which asks simply where in the Numbers 5 text you find support for your claim about the Numbers 5 text.
I look forward to your reply, which I'm confident will help me understand the basis of your claim.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
