When we read the OT, we are reading about a very Nomadic, Warrior Culture… that is how they viewed god.

The other thing to concider is that no one in the Old Testament had ever seen “God” other than by “representation” or “messenger”… thus even if those messangers/angles had themselves skewed the character of God, then God still remains, PURE LOVE, PURE LIGHT, and PURE ENERGY.

We have never, and will never be able to come into contact with what people think of when they/we nonchalantly through out the word, “god”.

When we read the OT, we are reading about a very Nomadic, Warrior Culture… that is how they viewed god.

The other thing to concider is that no one in the Old Testament had ever seen “God” other than by “representation” or “messenger”… thus even if those messangers/angles had themselves skewed the character of God, then God still remains, PURE LOVE, PURE LIGHT, and PURE ENERGY.

We have never, and will never be able to come into contact with what people think of when they/we nonchalantly through out the word, “god”.

sorry if this is off-topic. And I would not want to defend the violence of God, I just struggle with it….

peace

Bram

As far as revelation, here's the way I approach it. I think God's specific way of showing up is true in the story. The events and details did happen. But I think the way we experience it and perceive it is distorted regardless. So what that means for me is the writers got it right, but they read it wrong.

In other words, we don't have to question if the actual events are true. But we do have to question our ability to understand it because we are bent towards understanding it wrong. We project an incorrect understanding onto God.

I hope that makes sense.

As far as revelation, here's the way I approach it. I think God's specific way of showing up is true in the story. The events and details did happen. But I think the way we experience it and perceive it is distorted regardless. So what that means for me is the writers got it right, but they read it wrong.

In other words, we don't have to question if the actual events are true. But we do have to question our ability to understand it because we are bent towards understanding it wrong. We project an incorrect understanding onto God.

I hope that makes sense.

So when we read about who God is, we’re seeing it through the lens of the writer, not from a divine revelation of what is actually true.

I was thinking that you might be implying that because we affirm the reality of our inability to properly percieve divine revelation then we might also be questioning the reality of divine revelation. Not sure if that makes sense. What I want to see maintained is a belief in revelation and also acknowledge the many ways that that revelation is sometimes incarnated (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly).

I'm glad you didn't see it the way I thought Scot spun it and I hope that most readers of CT didn't see it that way, either. But I do think he could have been more careful – and he certainly could have quoted Brian from the book where Brian explicitly denies his belief in an “evolving God.”

So when we read about who God is, we’re seeing it through the lens of the writer, not from a divine revelation of what is actually true.

I was thinking that you might be implying that because we affirm the reality of our inability to properly percieve divine revelation then we might also be questioning the reality of divine revelation. Not sure if that makes sense. What I want to see maintained is a belief in revelation and also acknowledge the many ways that that revelation is sometimes incarnated (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly).

I'm glad you didn't see it the way I thought Scot spun it and I hope that most readers of CT didn't see it that way, either. But I do think he could have been more careful – and he certainly could have quoted Brian from the book where Brian explicitly denies his belief in an “evolving God.”