Mag,
Several issues at play here.
Does God GET angry? In one sense yes, and in another, no.
Obviously, we understand anger as well....we understand anger. Anger for us, is an emotional response. A person's switch is flipped for some reason or another. In other words, the person wasn't angry and then became angered. That response may be justified, or it may not. In another sense we may have a constant anger or hatred towards certain things. Personally, I have a hatred towards people who are cruel to animals. My anger may be aroused when I see an example of such cruelty, but the source of it is based in my character. The difference however in myself and God is well... a lot. I lack several traits.
If God is omniscient and immutable, then God already knows everything that you and I, and Uzzah will do, and nothing can change that. The Bible says that God is angry with the wicked
everyday. Immutable means He doesn't change, that being that he is not subject (contingent) to anyone or anything.
God is a jealous God (Deut.6:15) So, if a believer says that God is NOT angry or jealous, then they are ignoring the plainest reading of scripture. The real question is this. Is God's anger and jealousy like ours? The answer is no. There are some old threads we can probably dig up on this. Anthropomorphism, and does God experience emotion.
Now, obviously mankind will experience the anger and wrath when he trangresses God's boundaries. God will "pour out" His wrath. His anger will be "aroused." But we have to understand the use of these terms in that they are designed to speak to people so that they can apprehend God's intentional involvement in the world, and how He is dealing with mankind. I gave several examples earlier in the thread. For example, the electrical line that constantly has current running through it. It is 'aroused' when someone touches it, and they ground the current. The analogy isn't perfect, because I don't want to make it seem as if God is arbitrary, as He isn't. I only use this analogy to show that man's perception of things is often described different than they actually are in reality. For example, when I say I watched the sunset today, I am not making a claim that the sun is orbiting the earth, or that the sun actually sunk into the horizon. It is a phrase that describes things from our perspective. In turn the Bible is written with men, and with those perceptions in mind. If I wrote down in my journal that I watched the sunset, and then 500 years later, that term had fallen out of usage, the reader may think, "that superstitious moron. He actually thinks the sun moves around the earth." What it doesn't change is the reality that I observed an actual event, in which there was a real sun, a real earth and a real me.
Regarding Uzzah. The text provides us with some specific words.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God
We can know from reading this that God does in some sense have anger. It can be brought upon man based on his actions. Uzzah's death was the direct result of Uzzah transgressing the nature and rule of God. That is exegesis. We can also bring in Eisegesis. This is when we go beyond the words, not based on exploring the culture and language, but based on, SELF. Example: Since I experience anger a certain way, then I can ASSUME that God is like me or other people. 1)Ignorant of future events. 2)Flippant. 3)Not in control of my emotions. Sadly, most people (including myself) do this when they are reading. They make assumptions and most of the time without even realizing it. This is exactly the problem I see based on some of your early comments. You were dead set convinced that you weren't adding your personal bias to the text, but I'm sorry to say, you were. You were totally sold that the text blatantly said something, but the fact is the text
itself doesn't say anything beyond the words that I quoted above. The rest is your eisegesis.
I was under the impression that the bible was intended to be the word of God for all mankind, not a select few people in one time period. This is the point of me asking repeatedly about the bible being inspired by God and thus having divine authority. As I said earlier, these are issues we expect from mortal men writing to a time constrained audience. I would not expect issues like this if God played any major role since he would understand the importance of the bible having the need to transcend the time frame or language of any individual audience. The bible has problems that you would expect a book completely conceived and written by men to have. How do I write a book that will encompass and transcend all time and language with no problems of context, idioms, vernacular, region, time, and etc? These are issues that you expect men to have great difficulty overcoming, not an omnipotent and omnipresent God.
To put it bluntly, your impressions were wrong. The Bible certainly doesn't make that claim. The Bible was written to a specific people at a specific time. Now, that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't also have a broader purpose. But specifically, when a book is addressed to a
certain people, relating to events at a
specific time, we should probably not assume otherwise. If a part of scripture says, "Here ye O' Israel..." why would we ignore what it plainly says?
As far as the problem, it is man's problem, not God's. The bible has lots of problems. The first problem was when Adam and Eve rejected God's clear instruction. And the problems have been going on ever since. The Bible deals in reality, not fantasy. It deal with real people and real problems, and it doesn't try to white wash over the difficult things. You do understand that man is not perfect? Do you also understand that an eternal, immutable, omniscient being cannot create eternal, immutable, omniscient beings.
My main issue with that is that I have not seen anything authoritative, no consensus agreement that your interpretation is factually correct. Youve simply stated that using a particular method you interpreted it a certain way. I have not seen anywhere else where there is any kind of agreement that God didnt actually just strike him down in anger as the bible says. If you can show me where there is some kind of unanimous agreement or even a strong majority consensus then your argument would be a little more compelling. You havent provided a single source that supports your claim that the way you have interpreted it is the correct way. So Im having a hard time seeing it as anything but your personal interpretation that you are trying hard to push as widely agreed upon fact
I never said God didn't strike down Uzzah in anger. I am simply saying your conceptions of anger are constrained by your individual eisegesis. You are drawing in your own presuppositions and agenda to analyze an ancient text. If you think there is any source to support that, then I'm all ears.
As far as agreement. Truth is not determined by popularity poll. If a class of students fail to answer "4" for the problem, "what is 2+2," it doesn't change the fact that there is a correct answer. I've learned enough to know that I can be wrong. You can reject my interpretation. But, I feel there is far more reason to reject yours.
Kudos on reading the book. I think Copan does an excellent job addressing a lot of issues, while helping the reader to understand cultural norms, language issues, etc. that are often ignored or dismissed, and therefore lead to objections, or apparent contradictions. That doesn't mean he will bat .1000, but overall, it is a strong book, and I think you'll be better for having read it.
