Context is important, but even context takes place in a Plot, a Narrative, a Story with a plan.
That’s basic IMO to the mis-understanding, continually, of the importance of OT customs and thought-patterns, contradictions, paradoxes etc. that vex so many of us.
I think the Narrative, from beginning to end, is inspired. I think some of the details, based as they are in a nomadic people’s culture and customs, are not inspired; and to take those customs as expressed in a text as troublesome for us, without keeping in mind the Narrative, is to seriously distort their importance.
A bird’s eye view of the Story ( from Gen 1.1 to the end of Revelation) shows a very clear progression, and seeing that should help us to understand the very early writings in terms of their place in the Story.
The whole show is a glorious paean to God’s wisdom and love in helping us to recover from our failure in our Gardening task.
$.02
Calvinists in my experience tend to treat OT texts - early in the Story as I like to think - as equally explanatory as the much clearer and later NT texts. If we ignore the Story, we will have endless and unnecessary problems, and ‘fog’ up the otherwise clear direction of the narrative.
As far as I can tell the OT texts didn’t even refer to salvation at all because the OT didn’t refer to an afterlife except for possibly a couple of verses, so Calvinists are grasping at straws.
Yes, Jesus did refer to the OT many times. But notice that He never quoted those passages that paint God as ordering his people to destroy a nation, or as having people’s infants dashed to pieces and their wives raped before their eyes—or any other such atrocities.
It seems to me that His quotations about God were selective.
Can you clarify that? (BTW I did get your message… all is well)
That’s just my view. It seems to me that the Plan, from beginning to its glorious consummation - which is the ‘real’ beginning - is very clear if one steps back from all the little fussy details; and that plan appears to me to be directed by God, and the Book bears witness to that.
I could care less about how Israelites bred goats in front of a striped rod, y’know? Same with their understanding of God as some sort of partisan monster - that’s what they had to work with at the time, that was the culture, those were the myths. There are myriads of examples of that type of thing.
We know now that much of that was simple preparation for the full Truth in the flesh. St. Paul and St. NT Wright:-) have drawn the diagram of the plan so to speak, which brings out the truth of what was happening in the OT and what the fulfillment - now and yet to come - of the whole enchilada is and is to be.
In other words, we need to see the forest before we see the trees. IMO.
(And thanks ;-))
Do you mean you couldn’t care less? If you don’t care at all, I don’t see any way that you could care less.
It’s just a colloquialism, Don. I know the difference, but when I’m talking to the little people I try to fit in. 
Okay. But I guess you know that I’m a fanatic literalist. And since the title of this thread is “Contradictions” I thought I could get away with pointing out the one which you “literally” stated.
And God bless ya!
I think Dave means exactly what he wrote. His statement is rapidly gaining ground in the acceptance stakes. Language is fluid.
Could just be I am woke 
Thank you.
No, he didn’t. Dave didn’t care at all, and so he couldn’t care less.
Language may be fluid, but when you say the opposite of what you mean, you are using words incorrectly. It’s like saying after you are full from having eaten a big meal, “I could eat another bite” instead of “I couldn’t eat another bite.”
Oh don’t fight over me boys, I’m not worth it…herewith: colloquialism:
a word or phrase that is not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.
"the colloquialisms of the streets"
the use of ordinary or familiar words or phrases.
"speech allows for colloquialism and slang"Many thanks to John (Pilgrim) on the David Bentley Hart thread for directing us DBH’s reply to a critic. In that excellent reply Hart addressed a couple of issues that shed light on the OP and this thread.
Here’s one:
" You ask if I think the YHVH of the Old Testament was “good.” First of all, there is no single YHVH in the Hebrew corpus. The various texts that the Second Temple redactors collated into the Torah and Tanakh emanate from various epochs in the development of Canaanite and Israelitic religion, and reflect the spiritual sensibilities of very different moments in the evolution of what would in time become Judaism. Most of the Hebrew Bible is a polytheistic gallimaufry, and YHVH is a figure in a shifting pantheon of elohim or deities. In the later prophets, he is for the most part a very good god, yes, and even appears to have become something like God in the fullest sense. But in most of the Old Testament he is of course presented as quite evil: a blood-drenched, cruel, war-making, genocidal, irascible, murderous, jealous storm-god. Neither he nor his rival or king or father or equal or alter ego (depending on which era of Cannanite and Israelitic religion we are talking about) El (or El Elyon or Elohim) is a good god. Each is a psychologically limited mythic figure from a rich but violent ancient Near Eastern culture—or, more accurately, two cultures that progressively amalgamated over many centuries"
Here ya go Qaz
Agreed. Reminds me of something Channing wrote as well. I copied and pasted that into a folder on my desktop called “Wisdom”.
Although I do believe there was a literal forbidden tree in the Garden, I don’t believe eating from it aided humans in correctly distinguishing between good and evil. Quite the contrary: it opened the door to downloading a false image of God as bipolar, and only concerned about morality and human performance; whereas God is a unipolar Father of love who wants an intimate relationship with each of us.
We need to climb up and live in the Tree of Life, Jesus, and not lean on our own understanding.
Hmmm more contradictions…
Gen 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
That which was very good was in fact false, apparently??
IF indeed such was an actual talking snake.
There are so many assumptions… one being that biological death did not exist as a natural part of creation.