I'm having a tough time following you because I see so many implications of some of your statements but I can't pick out which ones YOU mean to imply.
We Catholics don't think of the New Testament as an improvement over the Old Testament any more than we think the front wheel of a bicycle is an improvement over the rear wheel. (All responses suggesting the children of Israel went around on unicycles will be laughed at.)
It is a further revelation.
One of the things one has to wrestle with, I think, is the problem of talking about God. You can't say he's just without sooner or later having to say he's merciful. And then you have to come up with an explanation which allows mercy to be consistent with justice, when, certainly at first thought, mercy seems to contradict justice.
Certainly, for those who believe in a literal Eden, it's no great stretch to think that God "put on" human appearance, complete with the sound of footfalls, when he interacted with Adam and Eve. And, as certainly, he knows that roasting beef (or mutton) can smell good. The manner of his perception is not as important as the fact of it. But "smell" is the name we usually use for the perception of odor. So why not? Hebrew is not a philosophical language. No language is without work, which is why there are philosophical jargons.
When I used to play hide-and-seek with my daughter, I knew perfectly well where she was, as I also did on the rare occasions when she was in trouble. But even I, who am evil, know to give a miscreant child as many opportunities to do the right thing as possible. So I could see God knowing perfectly well where Adam and Eve were hiding and still asking them to reveal where they were.
I guess if I HAVE a point it's that these suggestions of the inadequacy of the Old Testament seem to me to be really more about the inadequacy of some ways of reading the Old Testament. So, and I don't mean to be offensive or that this was your intent, but to me they seem rather like straw men.
What I’m getting at is God gives man a divine love letter to mankind via the Jews. Then a little later non-Jews decide that there is additional revelation that supersedes the previous revelation. The New Testament supersedes the Torah, the Koran to the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon to the Koran. I have to wonder what will supersede the Book of Mormon. You’ve heard of replacement theology, correct? If God’s word is infallible and complete truth why should man try to re-make the wheel?
The rabbis say the Torah is the Word of God and the rest of the Tanach (the Bible - the historical Writings, words of the Prophets) is commentary on his Word.
Up until the time the Torah was given polytheism was all the rage and a god could be anything - even a man. Then the Torah was given and Jews said there was only one God and no others, was indivisible (a complete unity), invisible, seemed far away but closer than anyone you’ll ever know, and is non-corporeal with the only closest expression taking a spirit form, who resides in a world that is non-physical. Doing so p.o.ed the rest of the world. The concept was extremely radical just like the day of rest (the Sabbath) because everyone worked every day from sunup to sundown every day until they became an disabled or died.
Even Christians get it right with John 4:24 saying “God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth”. You don’t see in this statement anywhere defining him as a physical human being.
But with the Christians revelation of a New Testament it became necessary to cross the line that Jews have always defined God as being - a physical human being - in the form of a deified Jewish rabbi. Even today some of the followers of the late Rabbi Schneerson have tried to give him Divine status after he died caused much disagreement and in-fighting within the Chassidic (Lubavitch) community.
Do you think that if a human being overcomes death in the ascension process that this human being qualifies for the title of God? Even Adam and Eve had eternal, immortal life until they lost it because of the sin/mistake they made and one we live with today. Did that make them God, too? There can’t be more than one God because he has stated so and get’s a bit jealous if one attempts to go after other man-created gods.
What happens when man returns to a similar state as Adam and Eve? Do we all become gods?
Once Christianity opened the door for a Jewish rabbi to become God it doesn’t surprise me to see Mormonism telling their followers that any Mormon become a god of a planet in this universe if they follow certain rules and do certain things.
If life is found on other planets does this invalidate Christianity? What’s interesting about the article is when it says this.
“God’s love is by choice, not by merit of place, time, or character.”
God is beyond the physical in order to be able to love beyond the merit of place, time or character. God is the complete totality of truth. How physically tangible is the truth. It never has been. His eternal and forgiving love is complete and perfect. How physically tangible is love? His peace, too. How tangible is that, too?
Here’s an interesting video of where Eden might have been (the Persian Gulf). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxU47eGegEc&feature=related
Would classifying the Old Testament as inadequate that God is inadequate or that the explanations of it were inadequate? How can the Old Testament be “old” if God’s truth is eternal and never changes? Is there old truth and new truth?