Tag Archives: moeilike Bybelgedeeltes

Die offer van Isak, die verband tussen geloof en rede, ens. : So ‘n paar skakels

 So gepraat van moreel problematiese Bybelgedeeltes (my vorige inskrywing), hoe kan mens die verhaal van Abraham wat sy seun gaan offer sien? Aan die laaste sin van die skakel weet ek nie eers of die skrywer die verhaal glo nie, maar hy verskaf waardevolle insig.

Hier is twee ander insigte oor die saak:

a) “Ek het dikwels gewonder hoe Abraham dit oor sy hart kon kry om sy eie seun te gaan offer. Toe my eie kinders groter word, tref dit my: Isak was ‘n tiener” – Ds. Alec Kriel (Grappie)

b) God het belowe dat daar uit Isak vir Abraham ‘n nageslag sal kom. God se vraag was dus óf: “Abraham, vertrou jy my om Isak uit die dood op te wek?” óf: “Abraham, vertrou jy my om te keer, dat hy nie sterf nie?”

– – – – – – – – – –

En wat is die verband tussen geloof en rede? Is geloof anti-rede, soos party mense beweer? Humblesmith vertel hier meer van die verband.

– – – – – – – – – –

Waarom moet gelowiges apologetiek gebruik? Humblesmith gee in “What is apologetics and why should we use it” redes uit die Bybel uit. Nog twee redes is Lukas 10:27 – Jy moet die Here jou God liefhê met jou hele … verstand …, en Joh. 8:32 – die waarheid sal julle vrymaak (ook die waarheid oor bv. die opstanding en die Skrif se akkuraatheid.)

– – – – – – – – – –

Alle gelowe het hulle skeppingsverhale. Hier is een vir ongelowiges:

Is God ‘n morele monster? vra Paul Copan

 Paul Copan vat al die moeilike Ou Testamentiese gedeeltes – soos waar God die Israeliete vertel om hulle vyande dood te maak- en vors vir sy boek na hoe dit gesien moet word. In die onderhoud hier vertel die onderhoudvoerder oor die boek:

I am trying to think of the last time that I’ve seen so many biblical scholars – let alone Old Testament biblical scholars – endorse a book by a Christian philosopher. Your topic and thesis have been welcomed by high-profile members of that community of scholars.

Paul Copan self is ewe entoesiasties:

Surprising—and yet not surprising—is the fact that the more deeply I dug into understanding the ancient Near East, the more the biblical text made sense and the more favorable it looked in comparison to other relevant texts in the ancient Near East.

Daar is heelwat waardevolle insigte in die onderhoud, oor verskeie Bybelgedeeltes. Byvoorbeeld hierdie twee, oor slawerny en oor God as jaloers:

As far as servitude (“slavery”) goes, this was voluntary and contractual rather than forced (unless Israel was dealing with, say, hostile foreign POWs who might be pressed into service to cut wood and carry water). Yet Israel’s laws prohibited (a) kidnapping, (b) returning runaway (foreign) slaves to their masters, and (c) injuring servants. If these three Mosaic regulations were observed during by Western colonial powers, slavery would not have emerged and the nineteenth-century history of the United States would have looked much different.

In my discussion of divine jealousy, I point out how Richard Dawkins dismisses God’s jealousy as petty. Yet he ignores the profound marital language bound up with God’s covenant with Israel and the true pain God feels when his people run after other deities and/or put their trust in political alliances with other nations (idolatry).