I think the Bible is a record of man's perception of God. The OT shows direct influence of the Semitic perception of God, which influenced what I call "pre-Judaism." In essence, God is portrayed like all gods of the era: vengeful and possessive; reward and punishment. A sort of "if you do exactly what I say, I will bring you paradise" and "if you mess up, I will obliterate you and your family and everyone you know and curse everyone else's future generations..." I think that this form of "pre-Judaism" was likely monotheistic, but believed in the existence of other gods. Hence, I also think that the Genesis creation myths never intended to touch on the whole of creation, but, rather, the creation of the "chosen people." After all, if Adam and Eve, along with their children, Cain, Abel, and (later) Seth were all the people on the entire Earth, how could Cain marry someone else outside of the Garden? Now, folks, THAT is the ultimate contradiction of the Bible, according to existing interpretations: marrying someone that shouldn't exist. However, I believe that Cain marries a Moabite--hence, the Moabite was not part of the "chosen people" and was not part of the "Garden of Eden." The Garden, perhaps, is "Heaven," which would not be resident on Earth, and, up until Jesus' death and resurrection, tradition holds that heaven was sealed to everyone. Hence, "the Garden" that is "Heaven" is reopened, and, thus, when Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden, they are thus sent to Earth, whose history is never addressed.
However, in addressing both the Garden of Eden and Heaven, I am crossing over into the other, more predominant influence of the OT: Zoroastrianism. After being taken over and exiled back into present-day Iraq (and ancient Sumer) for 300 years, Judaism, as we came to know it, was born. Zoroastrianism is where we got angels, Satan, the concept of a Messiah, the last Judgment, the dualism of good versus evil. And even the Pharisees...do you know where their name comes from? Parsee or Farsi...e.g., Persian. The Sadducees were the competing "purist" sect, while the Pharisees had Persian ideas and they hated each other.
Anyway, there are many links on this subject that are far more in-depth than I.
This is a good one. It also shouldn't be a coincidence; no texts from before the exile have ever been found in existence, but comparing the 10th century Masoretic OT texts to the Dead Sea Scrolls--with the former long being considered the oldest existing texts before the latter was discovered and fully translated recently--not only is the canon different (it includes all the Catholic "apocryphal" texts and others), but even the texts have some notable differences.
But all this exploration is a result of the Catholic still within me, as, since Pope Pius XII, it has been widely encouraged to discover both the origin and original context of the Biblical texts, irrespective of any traditional interpretations, as to discover the context that it was written is to perhaps discover the true Word of God.
Just as I believe that God works through science, similar in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, I do believe that God reveals Himself through the Bible--but, like science, it is not obvious. After all, the pursuit of knowledge is often more satisfying than actually having it. So, while my belief in God has not changed, my views on religion have. I think that God reveals Himself through multiple religions, like a bunch of puzzle pieces that have to be put together. But, as "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10), I am at peace as to where I know I must go, while I continue on my pursuit of knowledge. Religious tenets that run contrary to love--like homophobia, for instance--I do not view as being from God, but from man and our inherent prejudices.
Perhaps this is all unconventional, but I believe that this study has satisfied, for me, the philosophical contradictions of the Bible that permeate this conglomerate of texts.
Melon
