Resolved: YHWH should not be worshipped

As we see throughout the Old Testament there are many stories that trouble even the most faithful believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. I concede that there are something’s in the Old Testament that I don’t understand and that is not enough criteria for me to not follow the God of the Bible. The problem with Con’s argument is his conclusions on the dealings of God with the Gentile people in Canaan do not line up with the narrative explanation of Scripture. As he claims that the motive of God was genocide in these situations, which is false. As we see in Joshua 5: 13-14 (1) the Commander of the Lord’s army shows up and Joshua asks Him are You for us or for our enemies and He says NO, which is part of the narrative explanation and the second half is found in Israel’s law in Duet. 9:1-6 (1). The story in the book of Joshua is clear that ethnicity has nothing to do with the conquest. In fact in an ancient context Joshua 5 makes a deliberate repudiation of a normal understanding of a tribal conflict. As we look at the law in Duet. 9 it makes it very clear that this has nothing to do with Jews going out and killing Gentiles for global conquest reasons, but in reality they are God’s instrument of judgment against an extremely wicked people. This has nothing to do with genocide or ethnic cleansing, but with the judgment of God according to the narrative explanation of Scripture. As we see later in Scripture God judges Israel just as harshly in multiple exiles and makes it clear that God is not just simply playing favorites. Second, all the violence of the Old Testament must be read through the lense of the New Testament. Some of the rays of Old Testament light are refracted through the Christ event into the New Testament with little change for example the sexual ethics of the Old Testament. Some rays are intensified like love your neighbor turns to love your enemy. Lastly some things get refracted beyond recognition and among these concepts are holy war, theocracy, and temporal judgment. (Not to say that God does not still judge inside of time, but is no longer the default way of judgment as in the old covenant. Judgment is postponed until the Day of Judgment. ) So as we see in all of the cases mentioned by Con it was they default way of God executing His judgment as the perfect Judge, not the false accusation of blind genocide. For me to go into details about all of the tribes mentioned and there atrocities committed against children, women, and others would be a waste of time. The people earned their judgment through their own murders, rapes, and child sacrifices and so on. Lastly, a robust theory can still hold up with some perceived inconsistencies. I will be the first to admit there are some actions and ethics in the Old Testament that look inconsistent with the Jesus we see revealed in the New Testament. So if we have a robust theory whether in history or scientifically inconsistencies do not bring the whole thing down we can actually live in the tension. Therefore, because of these things we cannot conclude that because we or I or anyone does not understand how God works in the Old Testament that He has been definitively proved to be not worthy to follow. There are so many example s of these types of theories that we don’t just throw away because there are some perceived inconsistencies. First, here is a historical example the majority of historians believe that the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. (2) There is a very small minority who don’t believe it because of a few inconsistencies, for instance some of the writings of Dead Sea Scrolls contradict some of what Josephus wrote about the Essenes believing, yet that does not tear down the entire theory. A scientific example is obvious the Theory of Evolution has gaps and inconsistencies, yet we are supposed to take it as fact. Third we have Radiometric Dating and the troubles with Mount St. Helen's and the Creationists would argue if it does not work when we know when the material was formed how does it work when we don’t know when there material was formed. (3) Now I know I brought up some controversial topics and each of these could be debated, but the examples are of how a robust theory may seem to be inconsistent with other evidence doesn't mean we must give it up at least in the evolutionists eyes. So, what Con is saying is if some of the information in the Old Testament appears to contradict with the God of love revealed in the New Testament we should not follow this God until we can definitively figure out these confusing actions of the Old Testament. It would be like saying stop teaching my kids at school evolution because you CLEARLY can’t call it a law otherwise you would, or saying get rid of radiometric dating because it is inconsistent and in reality based on previous belief systems. So to make a long argument short saying YHWH shouldn't be followed based on the evidence Con has presented is non-sequitur. In conclusion, though there are some things that honestly trouble me from the Old Testament, it is clearly not enough to deem YHWH not one to follow. If Con is looking for me to reconcile every event in the Old Testament before I can follow this God when there are so many other grounds that point to the “theory of the God of love who died for us all revealed in Jesus” it will not happen. There are enough indications on other grounds; philosophical, historical, and personal that the God of the Old Testament is the God of love revealed in Jesus and we can cling to that as a robust paradigm despite the fact there are some things that trouble us from the Old Testament. 1. www. biblegateway. com/ 2. www. crystalinks. com/dss. html 3. www. bible. ca/tracks/dating-radiometric. htm