I recall from when i went to church as a young lad, in the old testament of the bible, God used to speak directly with the general population. it says things to the effect of “God would speak with the people, but the people were evil, and turned away from god”. I cannot remember specific verses but im sure there is quite a lot of similar situations described in the old testament.
My question is: When the bible states this does this mean god actually spoke with the people, therefore giving them 100% proof of his existence, yet they still decided to go against him?
Because i dont beleive if you had 100% proof of god, anyone would turn against him. It would be even more stupid then someone saying to you:
“I am about to put a jelly bean in front of you, and leave it there for 2 seconds, if you DO NOT eat the jelly bean in the time i have placed it, and then removed it. I will give you 67 billion dollars. If, however you DO eat it, i will cut off all of your limbs.”… and someone eating the jelly bean. NO ONE is that stupid.
So, does the bible really expect us to beleive god communicated directly with the people in the old testament days, or is it saying the proof they had was similar to what we have today, e.g old prophetic writings and no psychical evindence?
In Judaic tradition, the only time that God’s “voice” was heard by the general populace was at Mt. Sinai when the Decalouge was given. I’m not aware of any other occasion where God spoke directly to the people (as opposed to doing so through prophets).
The assumption, as zev says, is that “God spoke to the people” by means of inspiring those among him – prophets, judges, et al. to “speak His Word.”
While one cannot rule out the use of “He spoke” as literal, per se, (on the presumption that the Bible is reporting something factual here), it appears from the ongoing use of the phrase in contexts where it can only mean “inspired a prophet to speak,” for which examples can be cited in the books of all three major prophets and several of the minor ones, that it was normally used in the slightly figurative sense of inspiration, rather than a theophanic voice. The few occasions when God is reported as directly addressing the people in Scripture in a theophany (including the New Testament, which is outside the scope of your question), the wording makes very clear that that, and not something else, happened.
It may not count as “speaking” to them but he did reveal himself to the Israelites while leading them around in the wilderness as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. They even built a tent for the cloud to hang around on when the Israelites were stopped.
It’s not a voice but it’s a pretty significant proof. It would be hard to argue with or turn away from a cloud-god leading you around, especially when it turned into fire.
This is what im getting at, I dont think anyone who saw god floating on a cloud would be stupid enough to purposely go against him, knowing full well they would go to hell.
I just thought maybe i should clarify my jelly bean analogy just incase it seems a little out of place
Person placing the jelly bean - god
laying it before the person for two seconds - symbolising the shortness of life on earth compared with eternity
eating the jellybean, indulging in pleasures you are told not to
the 67 billion dollar reward - heaven
cutting off of the limbs for indulging - hell
Because effectively if you saw god floating on a cloud, or god spoke directly to you, and still chose to go against him. You are knowing that you are going to burn for an eternity. Which is much worse than having your arms and legs cut off!
In fact Moses was not allowed to set foot in the Holy Land because when getting water from a rock he struck it with his staff, allowing some to think that made the water come out, not God. Notice how that is the opposite of the faith some think god wants today. He wanted the miracle to be very clear.
I would suspect the reason for these passages was to encourage the people to listen to the priests who were transmitting god’s word, and not doubt or make trouble.
Well, prior to the Flood things were different. The Lord did speak directly to Adam, Eev, Cain & Noah according to the OT*. But after that, just to a few prophets.
*Gen 2.16, Gen3:9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19. Gen 4:6,9, 10, 11, 12, 15. Gen. 6:13, and so forth.
Since for a while- Adam, Eve & Cain were 75% of the world’s population of “humans”, I guess one could say that “the Lord” “spake” directly to 'the people".
Do note that this is according to a Literal reading.
As far as I know, according to the Tanach the Israelites never actually doubted God’s existance, per se. What they did doubt was his omnipitence and omniscience[sp?] - in other words, they believed He existed, they just didn’t believe He was all-powerful and all-knowing. Many still believed that there were other gods about who could give Him a run for His money.
Besides, they weren’t exactly rocket scientists back then.
This is exactly the reason why I stopped believing the Bible when I was just a kid. Even I could see how ridiculous it was that the Hebrews in the Exodus kept rebelling against God even after observing the following:
Plagues of Egypt
Parting of the Red Sea
Water from the rock
Bread (Manna) from heaven every morning except Sabbath
Pillar of cloud/fire
I thought, "These people are either total idiots, or else… :eek: "
The difference between now and then was that in ancient times EVERYTHING was magic or related somehow to divinely originating powers. There was no alternative method for explaining the universe like we have (Science). Flying around a fiery cloud and buildng tents in the sky is not much more proof than the sun rising every day or a horrible flood or a storm. What else would cause it but some form of magic/voodoo/gods/God/etc? Maybe the intonation is that the Isrealites sought alternative means of explanation (other magic/gods/voodoo/yadda) besides the Yahweh himself, and this made Yahweh mad. Maybe the Isrealites said to themselves, Zeus did it!
Firstly, IIRC, at the end of Job, God speaks to him and his friends, not the general populace.
Secondly, according to many Jewish scholars, Job “never was and never existed.” The entire story (according to some, not all) is simply a moral lesson but never happened in reality.
I’ve seen people who have had every advantage out of life, even amazing “coincidences” or “blessings” which seem to show that Someone is looking out for them, turn around & totally piss away these blessings & spit in
the face of everyone who loves & cares for them. I have no problem believing
people can totally reject God after encountering Him directly.
In addition to what Pythagras mentions, remember that polytheism was the order of the day. The entire ancient world believed in multiple gods, a god for every purpose under heaven. It is even possible to read the text of Exodus as though the other gods exist, but that the Hebrew God bested them. Monotheism was a new concept, lots of the Israelites didn’t get it. Even late into the occupation of Canaan, we have lots of archaeological evidence that polytheims endured a lonnnng time.
So, just because one of the gods seems to be more powerful, has taken you under wing, and you see these miracles; just because he says He’s the only One and you worship Him alone… Well, you don’t want to anger the god of rain, do you? Ancient mythologies have stories about how (for instance) Hera gets jealous because some hero favors Aphrodite over her. So, we’ve got lots of folktales about how dangerous it is not to give equal time to the various powerful gods, and here’s one who says to worship only Him? Brrrr. Would have seemed risky, if not irreligious, to many of the people.
Also, of course, we’re not sure what the miracles looked like. For instance, with the plagues on Egypt, most of the miracles are naturally-occurring – the river gets polluted, the fish die, disease hit the people and animals, swarms of locusts, etc. Was the crossing of the Reed Sea simply a matter of unusual tides? While some people read the story in Exodus as literal, others read it as a poetic rendition of what might have looked like natural phenomena.
Finally, remember not to characterize an entire people by the behavior of a few. Yes, there were plenty of rebels, but there were always plenty who stayed loyal to God.
What Dex said is very, very true. For example, in the account of my namesake’s martyrdom, written within a few weeks of the event, it’s reported that he was obliged to avow, “Away with the atheists!” – by which the Romans did not mean the sorts of folks with philosophical objections to the idea of a deity, but the early Christians – because they disavowed any belief in the gods of Rome, Greece, etc., that all right-thinking citizens of course expressed as a matter of course!
