"So the Lord will discover their secret parts"?? He's gnashing away at the daughters of Zion and their tinkling toes, and among his threats are that the Lord will discover their secret parts. What do you think they mean by that?
It's holy for 7 women to want to marry one man (to make them honest women, I guess), and they will promise to take care of themselves, so that they are constantly working, but the man doesn't have the responsibility to actually take care of his entire family. And this is holy why?
It's also interesting that Isiah gets so upset about the tinkling toes of the women, but doesn't say anything about garishly dressed men. And it's the women who should want to live in a harem, even when their husband can't take care of them, but the men don't have to worry about that, or taking responsibility. How convenient.
Isiah 14 talks about Lucifer. They refer to the "stars of God". What could they mean by that?
It's also notable that many of the prophecies in Isiah that people often claim have come true, they're prophecies that have come true because someone, aware of the prophecy, has tried to make them come true. Like Israel returning to the holy land. They did this because of the prophecy, and it is seen this way by religious conservatives. That is not the same thing as having a prophecy come true despite action to the contrary, or over which men have no control. Or if it comes true despite no knowing of the prophecy. If god really wanted to show his power, he wouldn't put out a road map: do this and then you can be my saviour, or feel free to claim the power comes from me; but rather than no matter what you try to do, this result is inevitable. Never mind that it's rather too convenient to say that those prophecies that have come true are true, but that those that have not come true don't indicate that Isiah was a bad prophet, just that they haven't happened yet. You can say that about anything that is vague enough, good prophet or bad, false prophet or true.
Isn't it oh-so pagan that god would be so closely affiliated with a mountain, like the Greek gods?
This saviour for Egypt? Where is he?
More of this inferiority complex. this design to crush those who have and make them as impoverished as the poorest poor, regardless of whether they have earned their wealth or not. It's rather communist-sounding actually. Merely by having it, by being lofty and elite, they deserve to have it taken away from them and be crushed.
Oooh... zombies! Again.
Here's another example of how will force them to err as if with a bridle in their mouth. What ever happened to the idea of free will? It's not in the OT, apparently. We have free will, I guess, but only until god wants us to behave a certain way--almost always so that he can increase punishment--and then we don't.
And here, he is punished those who are helping, as well as those who are being helped (with "holpen"... I swear, sometimes it's like I'm reading Old Enlgish).
That picture of slave morality thing is really thick in Isiah.
Christians often talk about atheists not taking the entire Bible in context, and supposedly quote-mining, just looking for passages to complain about, and not seeing the big picture. But I rather think this is mere projection. That it is the believers who are quote-mining, and focusing only on those passages which fit into their pre-conceived worldview, and atheists who actually try to take the Bible in its entire context. The problem is that just like pagan myths, the entire context is self-contradictory, incoherrent, inconistent and irrational. If you try to make a coherent theology out of the material in the bible, there is very little to work with. Perhaps that god is immoral and cruel, and wants people to be suffering, even when there is no need. Much beyond that, consistency is lacking to make broader claims. And that's just the OT. When you add in the NT, it becomes still murkier.
"Drink ye of the waters of thine own sister"? What could they mean by that??
It occurs to me that it's interesting how easy it is to reinterpret the bible as not having a jealous god, but merely having a jealous (and power-hungry) priesthood. How much easier is it to keep control of a people who impoverished, overworked, downtrodden and not proud, and how much more important is it to a priesthood who wishes to maintain control, that they not go out and get independence from them by worshipping other gods of their own making (competition!) that would provide the people the comfort that the priests would rather have them get from the priesthood. The people are throwing off the power structure. So how much more important to maintain that power structure. And they blame their desire to remain in power on god, rather than taking responsibility for their own power-hunger. It's kinda like my mom's view of Santa, that he is there to help maintain control of the children, to use as a threat, so that they don't have to take responsiblity when bad things happen, so that they aren't the ones that have to make threats, only "pass them on" so to speak.
Jeremiah is kinda non-descript. After getting this far, it kinda all blends together. Or maybe that it was the middle of the night, and my mind kept wandering. We'll pick up in Jeremiah next time still, since I didn't finish it.