I'm speaking in general, and was responding to the comment above mine, by Rick. I'm not specifically referring to Blogging the Bible; I haven't read it. But since he was referring to that, I can see where it would've looked like I was too. Sorry.

edited because I'm typing this at work, and I can barely see what I'm typing. My spelling doesn't usually suck.

As amusing and even informative as it is to read the Bible simply as text, as a story, that doesn't provide an accurate understanding of it. It can't be understood outside of its cultural parameters. Which is true of any literary work, even, I argue, a divinely inspired one.

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God. If we view the Bible as the struggle of a people to grasp and understand the idea of God, then of course it becomes a rich and spiritually exciting journey. It that case it makes sense that the early views of God borrow from relationships of power and obedience in the secular world, and that it was only later that a coherent view of God as something other than an abusive patriarch or a powerful warlord. It's a remarkable story of spiritual awakening.

But if we adopt for the moment the widespread view that the Pentateuch is the eternal and unchanging word of God, then it seems fair to read the text as text. It's hard to understand why any decent person would want to worship and obey the God who is revealed there.

But if it's read as truth, as something a god did? Seriously? That's a little psychopathic.

2 Kings 2:24 -- He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

So, just because Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord, does that mean that God, rather than Elisha, sent the bears? What does cursing (or doing anything) in the name of the Lord imply?

Is it that God blessed Elisha as one of the prophets, and as a result of that blessing, Elisha could do stuff that other people couldn't? And Elisha lost his temper, and due to a combination of free will, losing his temper, and the blessing God bestowed upon him, he was able to smite the kids via bear death?

Or when Elisha cursed the kids who mocked him, was Elisha essentially saying "O Lord, smite these bad boys!"? To which God then complied?

It seems to me that the second option -- Elisha asking God to smite the boys, and God smiting -- makes God into a trained monkey. Or an ATM. It doesn't work for me. I think the first option -- God's special blessing b/c Elisha was a prophet + Elisha getting pissed off + free will -- is more likely. Yes, God had a hand in it, through blessing Elisha as a prohpet in the first place. But I find it a stretch to say that *God* sent the bears to maul the mockers.

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God.

Well, yeah. Because I don't read it literally, myself. I grew up in a culture where the Bible was taken literally, and it was the literal reading of it that. frankly, finally made me lose the faith. Now, having a learned a lot more about other religions and other culturs, and history, etc., I can read the Bible with a different perspective. But I remember how it felt to read it literally, and how I responded to that.

Steph, I can understand your reading of it. But that wasn't how it was presented to me in Bible class as a kid, by the literal-readers. It was presented as a show of God's power and why we should fear and obey him, and respect his prophets. I've never before heard anyone say that it wasn't God who did it.

edited, because, dang it, I CAN spell.

Rick, I'm curious. What is it *textually* in the OT that makes you see God, as described, as a psychopathic warlord?

Do you not find the many examples given by people here to be convincing? The endless times in which children are killed to punish their relatives for a failure to obey? The people who are killed simply because they didn't understand a ritual or were clumsy in performing it. Or because someone in the same town offended the warlord? The massacre of outsiders to extend the territory of the tribe? The Egyptians tortured and killed because of the actions of their dictatorial leaders. What is it that convinces you this God is not a psychopathic warlord?

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God.

This doesn't make sense. Rick, what you're saying is that *either* one can read the Bible as the literal word of God, or one can read it in a cultural/historical (and, I might add, semantic) context.

Why can't a person read the Bible as the literal word of God while placing it in the relevant context?

I think, overall, that Elisha's got to be in the doghouse at the end of the story either way: dude, they mock your pate and you get them killed?? WTF is wrong with you?

If it's Elisha's intentional doing, then he's a murderer. If Elisha was just saying, "You people are poopieheads!" and God overreacted, then boo on Elisha for not being careful with his words in the presence of somebody so powerful and reckless. (I mean, boo on God too, but, it's Elisha who was the instigator.)

I repeat: Mockery paid for in death. WTF is wrong with you?? The only way I can read it that all involved dont' come off as villains is to say "This is a retcon for when bad things happen to mostly-good people." Which is how I read a lot of Greek myth, for example.

What is it that convinces you this God is not a psychopathic warlord?

His delivery of the Israelites from Egypt. His faithfulness in establishing the nation of Israel, from which the Messiah was prophesied to come. His faithfulness in saving Israel when they cry out to him, *even though* they've turned away from him over and over and over.

In the book of Jonah, God intended to destroy Nineveh because of its wickedness. But when they repent, God changes his mind and doesn't destroy them. God is merciful, no doubt about it. But he's also a just God. And Nineveh was begging for a good smiting.

The God of the OT reads as a psychopathic warlord only if you read it devoid of any context.

Does the parable actually say that the prodigal's father split the inheritance after the return?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. IIRC, he tells good son "all I have is yours" and that they should be happy that his brother who was dead is now alive. In a world where children were more like part of your property holdings than people you cuddled (which we've been objecting to a lot since they keep getting killed to make points) this was huge -- even though he's now monetarily worthless and has shamed us we should be happy he is alive.

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God. If we view the Bible as the struggle of a people to grasp and understand the idea of God, then of course it becomes a rich and spiritually exciting journey. It that case it makes sense that the early views of God borrow from relationships of power and obedience in the secular world, and that it was only later that a coherent view of God as something other than an abusive patriarch or a powerful warlord. It's a remarkable story of spiritual awakening.

But if we adopt for the moment the widespread view that the Pentateuch is the eternal and unchanging word of God, then it seems fair to read the text as text. It's hard to understand why any decent person would want to worship and obey the God who is revealed there.

I really don't know what percentage of Christians now and ever were/are literalists. I think there has always been an understanding in at least some portions of the faith that meets the more spiritually exciting journey you descirbe.

So far as Jews and the Pentateuch, there has been a tradition of commentary for millenia and possibly from the beginning. Check with a Jew, but my understanding is that 'eternal and unchanging' is not the same as 'literal depiction'.