But you haven't answered the question--
If we take your supposition that the UNDERSTANDING of God has evolved, and that the earlier, tribal ideas in, say, Exodus were not only replaced by a "New Covenant" and a "better understanding" of a "Universal God," then why still treat the Exodus understanding as correct?
If I may use another example, so perhaps you can understand what I mean:
Aristotle and Galileo.
Two remarkably brilliant men.
Two of the best in Western civilization.
Each contributed immensely to mankind, top 100 for sure.
One was correct about the Sun/Earth relation.
One was not.
We DO NOT treat Aristotle's Earth-centric ideals with reverence.
We DO accept that Galileo was right, and Aristotle was wrong.
As such, we have a "better understanding.
No science book will speak of Aristotle as if he were JUST AS RIGHT as Galileo...
SO--
Why treat the Exodus/Tribal God as being as "correct" as the "New Covenant/Universal God" if that is, the proper understanding?
You chose the word "understanding"...NOT, say, "relationship."
If it were a relationship that changed over time...well, that has its own logical problems (not the least of which being why an all-powerful, omnipotent being that has always existed should change his demeanor for the benefit of a few thousand desert-dwelling sheep herders in one dusty corner of one planet amongst nine in one solar system in one of the millions of galaxies that make up the universe) but AT LEAST we could claim that there was a progression to be permitted.
Relationships progress subjectively, and so it would then be possible to say "First God was a Tribal God, then he was a Universal God."
I'd again point out the seemingly-obvious at how idiotic and self-important such an ideal is when it suggests an immortal all-powerful being changed for the benefit of a few thousand people in one tiny speck of his Creation, but that's another story.
What you present is NOT a "relationship" progressing, however.
You present a changing understanding from OUR perspective, the same way we have a changing understanding of, say, physics.
The laws of physics don't change, but our understanding of them do.
As such, where we once taught Aristotle, we now teach Galileo (and Newton and Einstein and Hawking as well, but we'll stick with Galileo for now.)
Apply that here, however.
You say that we change our understanding of God, ie,
"We thought God was A, but we were wrong, God is actually B."
A=Tribal God as in Exodus, Leviticus and such,
B=Universal God as in the later books of the OT and the NT.
NOW.
If God is not A but B, why present A as being on par with B, or, quite simply,
Why say A = B?
In fact, you yourself claim A =/=B, and that God =/= A, but rather God = B.
So, why treat "God = A" as just as valid and holy as "God = B" when you yourself say we have found the understanding of "God = A" to be in error and that, actually, "G = B" is either the correct theory OR, at the very least, the correct theory at the moment, allowing for a "God = C" option if we ever changed/improved our understanding of God in this hypothetical situation in which God exists (ie, say we treated Islam as "God = C.")
Your answer makes the same logical mistake I find many who argue for God make and, indeed, it's the same problem in the text, namely:
You're violating a basic Law of Logic set down by Plato by treating an Unlike = a Like.
Plato said "Likes with Likes."
Which makes sense, again, "A = A" and "B =/= A."
Humanity is A.
God is B.
THEREFORE,
A =/= B,
Humanity =/= God,
So it's illogical to speak of God as if he were a human being (we'll stick to the OT God and leave Jesus out of this for expediency's sake, and since we were talking about the OT to begin with, anyway.)
Why treat the OT God as if he were Human?
This is why I take issue with those who say or hint at the idea of a "relation with God" and speak about the changes the perceive in God in the text or describe God's apparent motivations in the text or anything else in the text pertaining to God in HUMANISTIC TERMS.
The "Child to Adulthood" analogy fails here; again assuming God existed (which I don't for a second believe, but without first granting that little precept as a parenthetical hypothetical this would all be rather a waste of time, which it still probably is, but I digress) it would be illogical to assume that we would understand him differently at different stages as a child would understand a father or fellow human being at different stages of life.
If a God exists, that God is NOT a father because A =/= B and God =/= Humanity.
It would therefore be illogical to concoct an idea of God as a father figure based around our human-based understanding of the word and idea "father" because, again, A =/= B and God =/= Humanity, therefore, God =/= our idea of fatherhood.
The same goes for the actual text of the Bible--
God is written as if he were an immensely-powerful, omnipotent person.
If he exists, he is not an all powerful, omnipotent person via A =/= B logic.
God = God.
We =/= God.
THEREFORE,
It is illogical to conclude what God's motivations, ideals, or even his basic makeup and nature are, have been, would be, or will be.
"But Obi, the Bible--"
Two responses, depending on whether or not you take the Bible literally or not--
IF YOU DO TAKE IT LITERALLY, AS THE WORD OF GOD VIA THE HAND OF MAN:
Then you have to make an ENORMOUS logical leap and somehow justify how you know the Bible to actually BE the Word of God when, in fact, you cannot in any way prove that if you do not know and cannot have knowledge of the actual NATURE of said God via A =/= B and God =/= Humanity.
In other words, if you know absolutely nothing about the nature of a new element, it is quite the impossible logical leap to assume that said element is a building block of life; if you know NOTHING about the nature of said element, and the element is completely alien to you and your nature, you cannot then know if the element is a building block of life or not, at least not initially, you would need to first learn about it, test, it, study it, and so on for quite some time before you could even BEGIN to come to the idea that it was a building block of life.
There is absolutely no way to TEST your "The Word of the Bible is the Literal Word of God Himself" hypothesis, ergo, we have no grounds to accept your claim that it is the Word of God, ergo, we still do not know the Nature of God because we cannot accept the Bible as descriptive of God and his Nature for the reasons above.
IF YOU DO *NOT* BELIEVE IN BIBLICAL LITERALISM:
Then you're left answering the question anyway, "How do you know God's nature?" If the Bible isn't literal, we then must take a step back and once again ask how you can be making suppositions about the Nature of God when you do not KNOW the Nature of God.
If you don't take the Bible as his literal word, and thus literal "proof" as it were, and at least a starting point to ponder his existence, then you open the door for the Bible to be not literal, but figurative, and not objective truth, but subjective...
And once you've admitted the Bible is subjective then you must conclude that it is not an absolute truth, not absolutely true and, as such, any and all claims in it are open for debate, up to and including the actual existence of any and all persons and events within it, God included.
Either way you take it, the Bible does NOT give a window into the Nature of God, no matter how many passages you may quote--again, if it's literal, you must show me how you can prove it's the literal Word of God (after all, I can write something down and "claim" that it's "the Word of God" as well, and what objectively is to say my scribblings are any more truthful a claim than yours?) and if it's not literal, then we're back to square one, as you then allow the Bible to become subjective and, if that's the case, it cannot be used as objective proof for your claims.
To cap ALL of that--
Even if we DID play Devil's Advocate--pun most assuredly intended--and allowed you to somehow use the Bible as evidence of God's existence AND as a means to extrapolate the Nature of God to the extent that you're able to say "Yes, he DID want the Amalekites dead" or "Yes, God DOES mean what he says about homosexual activity in Leviticus"...
We now have a logical conundrum on our hands every time I ask "Why would a logical/loving/all-powerful God ___?" and you answer "God works in mysterious ways."
Either you understand, or you do not.
"But I can understand this aspect of God/God's will, but he keeps the rest hidden--"
Why?
If you're going to make that supposition, you need a rationale to support it.
"God's understanding is beyond man's understanding, though."
If that's the case, then we must conclude, as I said at the beginning, that A not being = to B and God not being = to Humanity, that it's illogical for you to read the Bible or believe in God as if you had some understanding if, in fact, you yourself say that understanding is beyond you.
Either it IS beyond you, in which case, well, everything I've already said about why this whole idea of a "relationship" or "partial understanding" with/of God is illogical,
Or it is NOT beyond you, in which case, well, where's my answer?
You haven't answered it yet, after all...
Why treat the outdated Theological Theory of God in Exodus as equally true as the "new" understanding of God in the NT if one is correct and the other is not?
If the NT in fact IS the correct understanding, why teach the old one as being holy and correct as well?
"But it's an evolving understanding--"
So is the study of physics.
Again, Aristotle and Galileo--
We say "Aristotle was a nice guy, but was wrong, and Galileo was right."
Why not say,
"The authors of Exodus were trying, for their time, and were nice, but the New Testament is right, so those homosexual-hating passages in 'Leviticus' can be struck from our dogma, as with all the endorsements of rape, genocide, and slavery in those same OT books, those ideals are outdated and wrong, here is the new, correct understanding, brought to you by the New Testament."
At least THEN you could strip away much of the scientifically-implausible, morally-reprehensible, and logically-nonsensical nonsense from the OT, cast it aside as we might an old, incorrect scientific theory, and proceed with a new doctrine that isn't blotted by all those hideous OT stains that encouraged slavery for centuries, have kept women in subservient roles for much of history, have been used to justify war and genocide, and are currently being used to deny people who love each other the right to marry right here in these United States of America.
So--you haven't answered my question, I'm afraid.
What's the answer?
A word on String Seconds versus Draws... From the creator himself.
)
)
)
)
)
)