responding to common objections to bible part 4

[The Stranger]

"Franks were germanic, so Germany's caim was valid!" So, the French could claim Berlin, as we are both Germanic Tribes... Or At least Aix La Chapelle...

Not only can they, they should, it is theirs by right of Karl der Grosse's heritage.

[Sigurd]

The question was whether God ordered genocide or not. Deuteronomy clearly shows that the answer to that question is yes. Whether Israel carried it out or not is irrelevant.
Also... The God of Israel is no stranger to genocide. Two instances pre-Canaan: The Deluge and Sodom & Gomorrah.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah, your posting was one of the things making these threads worthwhile, even though I have almost no interest in the topic.

Then just for you - I will make a contribution.

The question was whether God ordered genocide or not. Deuteronomy clearly shows that the answer to that question is yes. Whether Israel carried it out or not is irrelevant.
Also... The God of Israel is no stranger to genocide. Two instances pre-Canaan: The Deluge and Sodom & Gomorrah.

Let's give TR a leg up.

Sodom and Gomorrah are the archetype for this - God orders his servants (mortal or angelic) to destroy a city - because the people are evil. The Bible says that the people of the city were irredeemable, even the children.

Now - you can dispute the narrative (probably didn't happen anyway) but the internal logic is consistent.

God is Good -> People Evil -> God destroys Evil.

Nothing morally wrong with that - the only problem is if you say God might have been wrong, maybe not all the people were evil, a problem already dealt with in the Archetype. The key point is that God deemed these cities irredeemable, and as God is infallible we take him at his word. The only people who have a problem with this are people who don't believe in the Christian God, or say he is not as Christians describe.

The point to take from those passages is not "Genocide is OK" but "God destroys Evil, even up to enacting a Genocide."

[Rhyfelwyr]

Threads like this are depressing when I think of some of the good debates my and Philipvs had in the past. TR obviously is determined not to listen to anything anybody says to him, here we are again with walls of text for three separate topics all in the one OP. I confess I haven't read most of this thread. Ugh, I need to think of a good theological debate to have here...

[HoreTore]

The S&G story isn't very problematic as god did not act through agents, but on his own. If you don't believe in said god he obviously couldn't have killed anyone, but if you agree to his existance as given in the bible, then you have little choice but to trust him that it was justified.*

It gets really problematic, however, when god is claimed to work through human agents, as any loonie with charisma can convince a population to kill all the babies of people X by claiming to do gods will(as has happened in several forms).

"It's Gods will that the babies of Spanish revolutionaries be taken from their parents and given to proper Catholics."




*There are of course several ways to go about being a dick on this, like a principled position that capital punishment is always wrong for any reason(a belief I subscribe to btw), but I see little reason to go into that here.

[Ironside]

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22

so already we have self defense.

No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

I thought about looking for the fun of logistics of suddenly feeding a movable city of 600.000 (they will be a blight pillaging the surrounding area), but you haven't red those quotes right? None refers to women and children. Also:

Deuteronomy 2 (NIV):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

24 “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, 27 “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 28 Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— 29 as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.” 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The Lord our God gave us all of them. 37 But in accordance with the command of the Lord our God, you did not encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites, neither the land along the course of the Jabbok nor that around the towns in the hills.

Numbers 33:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

50 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the Lord said to Moses, 51 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.

55 “‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.’”

Next, you'll suggest that Ghenghis Khan was going for self defense right?

[Ronin]

The S&G story isn't very problematic as god did not act through agents, but on his own. If you don't believe in said god he obviously couldn't have killed anyone, but if you agree to his existance as given in the bible, then you have little choice but to trust him that it was justified.*

in the S&G story God apparently thinks that a man that gives his 2 daughters over to the crowd to be raped is a good moral man.
I have a tiny itchy-bitsy little problem with this.

[HoreTore]

in the S&G story God apparently thinks that a man that gives his 2 daughters over to the crowd to be raped is a good moral man.
I have a tiny itchy-bitsy little problem with this.

While I lack an intimate knowledge of the story, as far as I know the story comes in two versions, one with angels and one without. I think that point only appears in one of them, the one with angels. What to make of it? Don't know, don't really care.

[Ronin]

While I lack an intimate knowledge of the story, as far as I know the story comes in two versions, one with angels and one without. I think that point only appears in one of them, the one with angels. What to make of it? Don't know, don't really care.

Didn´t know about the 2 versions of the S&G story.
But I do know that the whole "give women over to the crowd to prevent homosexual rape" plot device is used 2 times in the bible, apparently they had a problem with plagiarism even back then.
it shows up in the S&G version with the angels, but it also appears in the book of judges, a man traveling with his concubine is taken in by a kind old man, and the male townsfolk come around wanting some male on male action:

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing.
24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

the moral seems to be that straight rape is preferable to gay rape.

[drone]

God probably needs to be sanctioned for his use of WMDs during the Sodom and Gomorrah event.

[rvg]

God probably needs to be sanctioned for his use of WMDs during the Sodom and Gomorrah event.

Especially since Vegas is still standing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the moral seems to be that straight rape is preferable to gay rape.

Actually, the moral is that you should protect your guests over your own household.

[total relism]

Who attacked who first is utterly irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough, but you can't seem to grasp it. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether it was genocide or not.

You do not seem to see the difference between evicting a population and toppling its leadership either. I do not know how to explain this simple enough for you, sorry. When the US attacked German-occupied France(which wasn't annexed(owned) so even less relevant), there was no removal of civilian populations. A change in statehood is a change in statehood, and has little to do with genocide. Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war. If Germany today was to claim it as its own and annex it, this would be a breach of international law. If they forced the french living there away, it would be a genocide.

I have no problems in accepting arguments that the removal of German civilians from Prussia by the Soviet Union after the war constituted a genocide.

Israel was Abrahams land? Irrelevant. The Canaanites lived there now, it was their land. The Canaanite population cannot be forced to leave without it being a genocide. You could subjugate them, and it would merely be unlawful under other conventions, but not remove them. That will always be termed genocide.

There are absolutely no provisions under international law to retake previously owned land. Doing so is under all circumstances an illegal act.

ok a clear circle has been presented in our posts over and over. You give your definition of genocide, than give a modern example of when or how it could happen. I point out the scenario is different than the bibles conquest, you than post again and on and on we go. You yourself admit you dont know the biblical data on this, and show proof and dont deny not reading my op. But than freely assume despite me showing contrary based on the bible, that it fits your modern analogies. I have posted over and over enough times showing this to be true. In fact you are still claiming the population as a whole was forced to move, despite 2 post showing the contrary.


so here is were you are, claiming that isreal committed genocide by

retaking of land that was theirs,they went to return to and were first attacked and tried for peace they would not accept. You say this is genocide, please use un document or any genocide definition to support this, i have posted websters,un, and about 20 off of wiki, not one agrees with you.

found here
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide


wiki provides many definitions from 1945 on, i cant see any that fit what your saying or the biblical narrative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
un
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

so were do you get your definition of genocide from?.

The question was whether God ordered genocide or not. Deuteronomy clearly shows that the answer to that question is yes. Whether Israel carried it out or not is irrelevant.
Also... The God of Israel is no stranger to genocide. Two instances pre-Canaan: The Deluge and Sodom & Gomorrah.

could you please post the Deuteronomy passage? no question it says kill all inside, men woman child etc leave none alive correct? than please read my op and tell me how after, you can still claim the bible teaches genocide from those passages. S&G was a Canaanite cities, but true pre conquest, yet as bible says god would not kill any non guilty person.

25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

think of the sins of the sodom, it included the sins of the Canaanites [child sacrifice etc], plus abducting travelers for sexual pleasure [rape] just what they tried to do with the 3 visitors, that is why lot offered his daughters instead, they were after rape.

god judged because of the many victims
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...33&version=NIV

even Richard Dawkins says about this.

#Later Lot’s own daughters get him drunk to have sex with him and so even Dawkins, in a surprising moment of moral clarity, writes, “If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.”

Threads like this are depressing when I think of some of the good debates my and Philipvs had in the past. TR obviously is determined not to listen to anything anybody says to him, here we are again with walls of text for three separate topics all in the one OP. I confess I haven't read most of this thread. Ugh, I need to think of a good theological debate to have here...

most complain that i should not do 1 topic at a time, so i now do 3-5, cant please them all, if you notice first few, i did 1 at a time. You said i "obviously is determined not to listen to anything anybody says to him". Could you please give a example? if you mean defining genocide than yes i clearly disagree with ht, as does every definition of genocide i have seen or posted [around 20]. I think had you read my op [you admit to not having done so] or responses through this thread [we both know you have not] you would see its ht lack of reading my post or biblical conquest [he admitted to not having read] that Leeds to the confusion, as i have pointed out multiple times. But if you still believe i'm not listing to anyone, would you mind showing 1 example? be careful to read my responses, or you will be easily caught showing you, would not listen to the one you accuse of not listing.

If morality is merely the human reaction to circumstances presented by God, then all of our good and our evil comes from the same place, and that places the source--God--above good or evil in a way that your or I can comprehend. I think a serious theologian would find this discussion a bit trite.

This is not accurate biblical theology at all. So does not apply to bible, if your interested could you reword what your asking, i will gladly respond.

I thought about looking for the fun of logistics of suddenly feeding a movable city of 600.000 (they will be a blight pillaging the surrounding area), but you haven't red those quotes right? None refers to women and children. Also:

Deuteronomy 2 (NIV):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

24 “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, 27 “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 28 Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— 29 as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.” 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves. 36 From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the town in the gorge, even as far as Gilead, not one town was too strong for us. The Lord our God gave us all of them. 37 But in accordance with the command of the Lord our God, you did not encroach on any of the land of the Ammonites, neither the land along the course of the Jabbok nor that around the towns in the hills.

Numbers 33:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

50 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the Lord said to Moses, 51 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.

55 “‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.’”

Next, you'll suggest that Ghenghis Khan was going for self defense right?

Me thinks your asking how all those people were fed while moving through the land? bible says this is when god was teaching them to trust on him, he supplied manna from haven, in fact bible says they got sick of eating same thing and wanted to go back to egypt lol, pretty well know part of bible.


as for your quotes from Deuteronomy 2 and numbers 33, had you read my op it would answer it for you. These indeed come after war had started,exodus happened before conquest, when they were attacked first. I mean read your own passages posted, Deuteronomy 26-29 tells how isreal was not going on offensive against nations, unless they would not allow passage through land to their land and attacked isreal first as they did before, and would continue to do had they not fought against them, killing woman children. Please read my op, it gives everything in order of what happened, when what deals/peace offering were made, when war happened etc. Even when your attacked and defending, that does not mean you never attack [jericho ai etc].

in the S&G story God apparently thinks that a man that gives his 2 daughters over to the crowd to be raped is a good moral man.
I have a tiny itchy-bitsy little problem with this.

he was good man, now bible never says he was good for this reason or that this was good, in fact the angels stop this from happening by leaving than. Besides, the bible teaches even good men do bad things, have you met a person who only does good?. Also if your atheist, why is rape bad? they are just trying to pass on his seed for survival, survival of the fittest no?.

[total relism]

Actually, the moral is that you should protect your guests over your own household.

i dont think their is a teaching in it, just what happened, otherwise god would have allowed it to happen, instead of getting out of sodom with lot and family.

[Ronin]

Actually, the moral is that you should protect your guests over your own household.

I guess you could say the logic in the S&G story is about being a good host to the extreme.
but in the Judges story the man gives up his daughter and the concubine of the guest, which was also a guest herself so that logic doesn´t fit (let's call it a first draft error).

[total relism]

I guess you could say the logic in the S&G story is about being a good host to the extreme.
but in the Judges story the man gives up his daughter and the concubine of the guest, which was also a guest herself so that logic doesn´t fit (let's call it a first draft error).

the book of judges [read whole thing] is about anarchy, and what would happen if no rules,king etc. It is were human sin would lead with no restraints, judges is full of horrible things, Israelite killing off the men of villages, to force rape woman etc.

[total relism]

One thing involving the death of children from god, this has to do with Canaanites,but it applies to any situation imo. I dont not think the bible teaches that god ordered isreal to kill babies during the conquest of Canaan as my op shows the bible does not teach so. But as earlier stated at least noahs flood this did happen directly from god. So a few things to consider.


infants killed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

only god is perfect judge

god judges by what is deserved based on crimes jer 50.29 ps 137. 8,15 Isiah 40.2. God is judge of man, does not order killing out of malice or lawlessness Deuteronomy 32.4.

God sees the heart of man, Hitler was once a baby and would look innocent, though god would know his heart and know he would grow up to become a monster.

7 For the LORD does not see as man sees for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
1 Samuel 16.7

The bible says all are born into sin we are all sinful and all babies are sinners and will grow up like the rest of us and be sinners .

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Genesis 8 20-21

I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby. This shows that a far more critical view is needed than "argument by outrage." Indeed, "argument by outrage" often assumes a form of omniscience by the critic.

God tells Abraham that his seed will not enter the land until the Amorites have reached the full measure of their sins, which would take roughly four hundred years. This means that every new generation of Canaanites grew up to be just as wicked and evil as the generation before them, without anyone repenting of their sins, proving that even children are born sinful and grow up to be rebels.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm


also all babies that may have been killed would have went straight to haven. Or it could be that god was saving them from a evil situation.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
Isiah. 57:1


It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity.# God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel.# The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites?# Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement.# Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.# So who is wronged?
Read more:#http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...#ixzz2DzKxcuj8


but why should we take seriously the skeptic’s advocacy for Canaanite children? Doesn’t the new atheist’s complaint ring hollow, since they are often at the forefront of defending a woman’s right to suction, dismember, or scald to death her unborn baby at any time and for any reason?
http://www.equip.org/articles/killing-the-canaanites/


Atheist often support abortion, witch is nothing more than a modern age version of child sacrifice.

[Ronin]

the book of judges [read whole thing] is about anarchy, and what would happen if no rules,king etc. It is were human sin would lead with no restraints, judges is full of horrible things, Israelite killing off the men of villages, to force rape woman etc.

the morality or the lack thereof of the situation doesn´t concern me greatly.
but I do find it amusing to find 2 chapters of the bible plagiarizing from one another.

[Ironside]

Me thinks your asking how all those people were fed while moving through the land? bible says this is when god was teaching them to trust on him, he supplied manna from haven, in fact bible says they got sick of eating same thing and wanted to go back to egypt lol, pretty well know part of bible.

I didn't remember that it was for the whole time, all those 40 years (6,6 million tons with a 600k population). But the venomous snakes sure shut the complaints up (numbers 21). Can't speak when you're dead.

as for your quotes from Deuteronomy 2 and numbers 33, had you read my op it would answer it for you. These indeed come after war had started,exodus happened before conquest, when they were attacked first. I mean read your own passages posted, Deuteronomy 26-29 tells how isreal was not going on offensive against nations, unless they would not allow passage through land to their land and attacked isreal first as they did before, and would continue to do had they not fought against them, killing woman children. Please read my op, it gives everything in order of what happened, when what deals/peace offering were made, when war happened etc. Even when your attacked and defending, that does not mean you never attack [jericho ai etc].

See, that's my point. Your op contains this on the matter:

Canaanites initiated attacks on Israel first.
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22

I've red all of them. None specifies any attacks on a defenseless Isreli, even if some are refering to attacks on Isreali. I've quoted back the bolded ones above. They specify that the offer of passing to the Amorites are a ruse and that the land west of Jordan is targeted for a god given conquest.

You can never claim self defense when you're provoking.

the morality or the lack thereof of the situation doesn´t concern me greatly.
but I do find it amusing to find 2 chapters of the bible plagiarizing from one another.

Happens several times appearently. The Amorite stuff is in Numbers as well, but there it's more of a matter of fact and the reason why the Ammonites aren't attacked are because they've fortified their borders. In Deut, conquering the Amorites were god given while the sparing of the Ammonites were also god given.

[total relism]

the morality or the lack thereof of the situation doesn´t concern me greatly.
but I do find it amusing to find 2 chapters of the bible plagiarizing from one another.

I dont see how they do at all, please provide chapter in judges you speak of, i will show they are 2 different accounts. That the same thing happened, sure, many times through history the same situation or close to it happen.

I didn't remember that it was for the whole time, all those 40 years (6,6 million tons with a 600k population). But the venomous snakes sure shut the complaints up (numbers 21). Can't speak when you're dead.



See, that's my point. Your op contains this on the matter:


I've red all of them. None specifies any attacks on a defenseless Isreli, even if some are refering to attacks on Isreali. I've quoted back the bolded ones above. They specify that the offer of passing to the Amorites are a ruse and that the land west of Jordan is targeted for a god given conquest.

You can never claim self defense when you're provoking.



Happens several times appearently. The Amorite stuff is in Numbers as well, but there it's more of a matter of fact and the reason why the Ammonites aren't attacked are because they've fortified their borders. In Deut, conquering the Amorites were god given while the sparing of the Ammonites were also god given.

oh yeah it was the 40 years, 40 in bible has special meaning, the 40 years in the wilderness wondering its called. True,when your dead no need to eat,cant argue there, but that argues against what you said. But even in Israels rebellion, god left a way to be saved and forgiven to any who wanted.

numbers 21 8-9 Israelite were saved by faith from god by looking up a bronze serpent on a stake. Just as we are saved by looking on jesus on the stake.
#"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life" (John 3:14-15). This "lifting up" of the Son of Man is a definite statement of Jesus' coming death on the cross



read exodus 17 8-13 first. Also in early exodus as well, they attacked defenseless isreal with no military. i thought i provided verse i will look for them. Read Deuteronomy 25:17-18 as well that reflects back. Those numbers passages speak directly to isreal being attacked first, just trying to pass through to their land and being attacked by local kings. I will post a few.


21 Israel sent messengers to say to Sihon king of the Amorites:

22 “Let us pass through your country. We will not turn aside into any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the King’s Highway until we have passed through your territory.”


When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them.
numbers 21.1

23 But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered his entire army and marched out into the wilderness against Israel. When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel.
numbers 21

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i dont think their is a teaching in it, just what happened, otherwise god would have allowed it to happen, instead of getting out of sodom with lot and family.

The Consensus is usually that all Scripture is primarily a form of teaching - even if the example taught is a negative on.

I guess you could say the logic in the S&G story is about being a good host to the extreme.
but in the Judges story the man gives up his daughter and the concubine of the guest, which was also a guest herself so that logic doesn´t fit (let's call it a first draft error).

Possibly - but the English "Concubine" implies she might actually be a sex slave - rather than a Free woman (and thus not a guest)

[total relism]

The Consensus is usually that all Scripture is primarily a form of teaching - even if the example taught is a negative on.)

i agree that their is teaching from S&G, i think the whole things is about teaching Abraham who would be the father of the faith, in that would teach us all. Just not that we should treat guest well by sending our daughters out to get raped.

[Papewaio]

the morality or the lack thereof of the situation doesn´t concern me greatly.
but I do find it amusing to find 2 chapters of the bible plagiarizing from one another.

I find it more amusing when they contradict each other.

[Kadagar_AV]

HT, we now have nukes and drones instead of melee weapons...

Morale progress?

[Sigurd]

Could you please post the Deuteronomy passage? no question it says kill all inside, men woman child etc leave none alive correct? than please read my op and tell me how after, you can still claim the bible teaches genocide from those passages. S&G was a Canaanite cities, but true pre conquest, yet as bible says god would not kill any non guilty person.

I'll quote my earlier post:

The Bible says:

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee

Now... read very carefully, cause I shall write this only once.

The question of your point number 9 reads (I am going to spoon feed you this one with colours):

9 - conquest of Canaan, did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children? did god order the death of innocent life?. What was the reason for judgment on the Canaanites?.

Based on the Deuteronomy passage I quoted, I could with justification answer yes to all of those questions.

- Did God order genocide?Yes. the Israelis were commanded to utterly destroy the Canaanites saving nothing that breathe.
- Did God order the killings of entire towns?Yes, as above nothing that breathes shall be left alive in these cities/towns.
- Did God order the killings of women and children?Yes. unless they are not caught under the umbrella of breathing things.
- Did God order the death of innocent life?Yes. I am guessing a city full of Canaanites also contains infants... who also breathe.
- Was there a reason for judgement on the Canaanites? I guess you are trying to convince us that the answer to this question is Yes also.

So Yes to all questions.

I have been very specific and I haven't advocated that the Bible says it is ok to commit genocide. I can't justify an act of genocide, because look, the Israelis did it to the Canaanites.
It doesn't matter how deprived these Canaanites were or how "evil" they conducted their life. A genocide pr definition was ordered on the Canaanites according to the Bible... nothing more to say really. You don't really need to justify it (Which is what the subtext of point 9 in the OP is all about).
And it wasn't only the Canaanites - God likewise ordered the destruction of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
Capishe? no more buts.

[Kadagar_AV]

I liked the colouring, very pedagogical.

Special methods for special people! Let's see if this helps him connect the dots.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why does no one ever break out the colors for me?

[total relism]

I'll quote my earlier post:


Now... read very carefully, cause I shall write this only once.

The question of your point number 9 reads (I am going to spoon feed you this one with colours):

9 - conquest of Canaan, did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children? did god order the death of innocent life?. What was the reason for judgment on the Canaanites?.

Based on the Deuteronomy passage I quoted, I could with justification answer yes to all of those questions.

- Did God order genocide?Yes. the Israelis were commanded to utterly destroy the Canaanites saving nothing that breathe.
- Did God order the killings of entire towns?Yes, as above nothing that breathes shall be left alive in these cities/towns.
- Did God order the killings of women and children?Yes. unless they are not caught under the umbrella of breathing things.
- Did God order the death of innocent life?Yes. I am guessing a city full of Canaanites also contains infants... who also breathe.
- Was there a reason for judgement on the Canaanites? I guess you are trying to convince us that the answer to this question is Yes also.

So Yes to all questions.

I have been very specific and I haven't advocated that the Bible says it is ok to commit genocide. I can't justify an act of genocide, because look, the Israelis did it to the Canaanites.
It doesn't matter how deprived these Canaanites were or how "evil" they conducted their life. A genocide pr definition was ordered on the Canaanites according to the Bible... nothing more to say really. You don't really need to justify it (Which is what the subtext of point 9 in the OP is all about).
And it wasn't only the Canaanites - God likewise ordered the destruction of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
Capishe? no more buts.

thanks for post,however, if you remember i said could you site passage,as you have done above, but i also asked you to [post 74]" no question it says kill all inside, men woman child etc leave none alive correct? than please read my op and tell me how after, you can still claim the bible teaches genocide from those passages.". you have shown that you have not done this.


clearly shown with your statement "You don't really need to justify it (Which is what the subtext of point 9 in the OP is all about). "

this is if you say the conquest was unjustified, it seemed your not arguing that,just that it was genocide.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

first, justifying what happened to Canaanites is very easy, as i did in op. Not one person has claimed [i would like you to] that the judgment was unjustified, or that if same happened today in liberal left, same judgment would not come to those people who did the same. Neither has anyone been able to show from a atheist worldview that what the Canaanites did was "bad", or that morals even make sense.
more on that here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

you also said "And it wasn't only the Canaanites - God likewise ordered the destruction of the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites. "

very true, all are under the title of Canaanites from the land of Canaan.



know to the important part. As you so nicely color coded i will bold.

" did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children? did god order the death of innocent life?."



to support this you provide a verse

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.


Genocide,killing entire towns,woman children,death of innocent life?.
than go on to say the bible teaches genocide,killing entire towns,woman children,death of innocent life. I say the bible says a big no to all. In fact i will post under spoiler how the bible says no to all, i would be very interested in your response especially if you still maintain that the bible,and these passages, teach all the above you say they do. Number 1 genocide and number 4, i most want you to try and defend.


I will be leaving out material from op to shorten, even tho some of it allies to your post

what was isreal told to do?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

what did god order Israel to do?
No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.
upon entering the land Israel simply asked for safe passage and were than attacked first by Canaanites numbers 21.1 21 21-24 21.33 20 14-17

Israel was required to make peace offerings to cities in cannan from a distance dt 20 10-16.
later Israel and Canaanites lived side by side in peace 1 sam 7.14.
The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty
any Canaanite city could surrender and would be shown mercy,josh 2, rahab and family were saved Canaanites joined Israel 6.23. some Canaanites were absorbed into Israel rahab and 1 chronicles 21.15,18,28. In Joshua 8 Canaanites are welcomed into the people of god.
http://www.paulcopan.com/new/
Abraham the father of Israel, was a pagan worshiping Canaanite before his conversion. Josh 24.2 acts 7.2.
In matt 15 Jesus ministers to a Canaanite woman. Jesus genealogy shows he descended from a Canaanite rahab.

Drive out not kill
Isreal was to drive out Canaanites not annihilate num 21.32 33.52 dt 9.1 11.23 18.14 19.1 ex 23.28 lev 10.24 num 33.52 etc just as adam and eve were “driven out” of the garden of Eden gen 4.14
If Israel did not drive them out they would join in there religion sacrificing child etc num 33.55.
Talking with Paul Copan about Genocide in Old Testament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lap_BdOJQo
http://www.paulcopan.com/new/

Deuteronomy#12.29-30:
#
The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But#when you have driven them out and settled in their land,#and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same."


Note that some inhabitants would be driven out, implying that they would continue to live and be allowed to settle elsewhere. Some would be destroyed. The Biblical references show that the primary purpose was to drive the Canaanites out of the land, not annihilate all the people.#

4 “Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.
Deuteronomy 9:4

Judgment falls on Canaanites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

war was limited in time/space/area.
The war was limited in time and space and area.,lasting primarily one generation. The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them.. Some stayed and fought so were killed. The war was against Canaanite religion not its people Deuteronomy 12.23.

conquest was limited in time and space, Israel was not to continue on in war.
So Joshua took the entire land,#just as the#Lord#had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance#to Israel according to their tribal divisions.#Then the land had rest#from war.
Joshua 11.23

men woman children? all killed?entire town killed?how many were killed?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

men woman children?All killed?
Reason conquest hyperbole and other parts literal p 238-239-Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem

biblical theology teaches, god is loving and would not unjustly command killing innocent people.
When god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in genesis he said he would not destroy it until all good people were out.

We know god does not kill innocent blood

`Thus says the#LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Jeremiah 22.3

These six#things#the#Lord#hates,
Yes, seven#are#an abomination to Him:
17#A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
proverbs 6 16-17

hyperbole language/attacks on military forts,not civilian populations,describe total destruction/victory in battle.
Multiple examples of similar not literal battle counts p 216-217

watch how fast atheist run from the claim god ordered destruction of entire villages, people, kill all inside etc
debate is god a moral monster? Paul Copan & Norman Bacrac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idCch7fjO1k

Sports players says they slaughtered the other team, that is hyperbole.

“all destroyed” and “all killed “ “men,woman child,young old” is typical language of day and not literal.

conquest of Canaan uses hyperbolic language such as “all”common in bible example, jesus says of the generation he was on earth in human form that it was a evil and adulterers generation and all were bad, yet other times he calls individuals righteous .

The sweeping words like “all,” “young and old,” and “man and woman,” however, are stock expressions for totality — even if women and children were not present. The expression “men and women” or similar phrases appear to be stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, “without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about their ages or even their genders.”
Christopher C.J. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2004), 474–75; Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 149.


stereotypical language of ancient near east, attacks likely on military forts and garrisons, no archeological evidence for people civilians in territories such as jericho or Ai these were military forts
p 175 is god a moral monster paul copan

"without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about age or gender use of woman young old is stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort"
p 176 is god a moral monster paul copan.

the term [ir] cities were used as outpost whole civilian populations lived in countryside. letters between pharaoh and Canaanite leaders show them to be distinct from each other.
p176 is god a moral monster paul copan

This stereotypical ancient Near East language of “all” people describes attacks on what turn out to be military forts or garrisons containing combatants — not a general population that includes women and children. We have no archaeological evidence of civilian populations at Jericho or Ai (6:21; 8:25).8 The word “city [‘ir]” during this time in Canaan was where the (military) king, the army, and the priesthood resided. So for Joshua, mentioning “women” and “young and old” turns out to be stock ancient Near East language that he could have used even if “women” and “young and old” were not living there. The language of “all” (“men and women”) at Jericho and Ai is a “stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants.” The text does not require that “women” and “young and old” must have been in these cities — and this same situation could apply to Saul’s battling against the Amalekites.
Furthermore, people in Canaan commonly used the associated term melek (“king”)during this time for a military leader who was responsible to a higher ruler off-site. (The civilian population typically lived in the hill country.) According to the best calculations based on Canaanite inscriptions and other archaeological evidence (i.e., no artifacts or “prestige” ceramics), Jericho was a small settlement of probably 100 or fewer soldiers. This is why all of Israel could circle it seven times and then do battle against it on the same day!10 Also, we should keep in mind that the large numbers used in warfare accounts in the Old Testament are a little tricky; they simply may not be as high as our translations indicate. The Hebrew word ‘eleph (commonly rendered, “thousand”) can also mean “unit” or “squad” without specifying the exact number.
Richard S. Hess, “The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray, Jr. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 39.

Josh 13 1-6 15.63 17.12 judges 1 19-34 shows not all were killed.Many foreigners lived among Israel and participated in covenant ceremony josh 8 33,35. There is no mention of any woman or children being killed, other ancient near eastern documents mention this from the time period if it happened.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-B.../dp/0830838260

“a careful reading of the text in its literary context makes it implausible to interpret it as claiming Yahweh ordered extermination”
Nicholas waterstorff “reading joshua” in divine evil? The moral character of the god of Abraham NY oxford U press 2010 p 252-53

OT scholar K lawson younger compares joshua-judges with other ANE language, and concluded the language is “highly figurative” .
Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem Heath A. Thomas#(Editor),#Jeremy Evans#(Editor),#Paul Copan#(Editor) p 215

Same language as the mesha stele “are clearly part of the totalitarianism rhetoric of the holy war,rather than historical correctness”
p224 Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem


saying all were killed,woman children etc causes
“the fallacy of misplaced literalism.. the misconstruction of a statement in evidence so that it carries a literal meaning when a symbolic or hyperbolic or figurative meaning is intended”.
Hoffeirer, Israel in Egypt p 42 James K hoffmeirer.

“monumental hyperbole”
John Goldingay city and nation in old testament theology vol 3 isreal life downers grove 2 inter varsity press 2000 p570.

Later in bible the same language is used of Judah's destruction in Babylon exile in Jeremiah,clearly not literal but literary exaggeration.


Bible teaches not all were killed,not woman,men,child,animals etc.
p 201-239 for arguments not all were wiped out.
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Bible...r+in+the+bible

all the Canaanites were not wiped out judges 2.3 1.21 27-28,numbers 31 woman children not killed found later in geologies.
battles reported in bible do not mention any non combatants killed.

Josh 13 1-6 15.63 17.12 judges 1 19-34 shows not all were killed.Many foreigners lived among Israel and participated in covenant ceremony josh 8 33,35. There is no mention of any woman or children being killed, other ancient near eastern documents mention this from the time period if it happened.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-B.../dp/0830838260

god commands in 10.40 11.20 to totally destroy yet in judges 2.1 same command given, told as to destroy shrines.

biblical account cannot and does not intend to be taken literal,to many examples in judges/joshua that explain different p 201-239.

Joshua reads he killed all and left no survivors, yet in hebron, debir, hill country- yet later they are still there.11.23 states he took whole land yet 13.1 still large areas to be taken.Cannanites still around after battles “until this day” 15.63 16.10 17 12-13 judges 1.19,21 27-35


how many were killed?estimates.
In Joshua 12, the victory list is given as 31 kings (generally petty kings of city-states) this would be around 70,000 people (assuming they all stayed around--a very dubious assumption in light of the international fear of Israel at the time).
But this 70,000 is against a base of close to 2 million people! (Israel was approximately 1.6 million at the time, and these nations are said to be 'more numerous' than Israel in a number of places--e.g. Deut 7.1,7.) This amounts to approximately 3.5% of the 'target population'. The Israelites were specifically told to execute those who remained in the cities (Deut 20.16) and those who hid in the Land--and therefore did NOT migrate out--Deut 7.20

Other estimates put the total Canaanite population at 45,000 before they fled, based on archeology.
Bible and spade 25.3 2012 p59

Furthermore, people in Canaan commonly used the associated term melek (“king”)during this time for a military leader who was responsible to a higher ruler off-site. (The civilian population typically lived in the hill country.) According to the best calculations based on Canaanite inscriptions and other archaeological evidence (i.e., no artifacts or “prestige” ceramics), Jericho was a small settlement of probably 100 or fewer soldiers. This is why all of Israel could circle it seven times and then do battle against it on the same day!10 Also, we should keep in mind that the large numbers used in warfare accounts in the Old Testament are a little tricky; they simply may not be as high as our translations indicate. The Hebrew word ‘eleph (commonly rendered, “thousand”) can also mean “unit” or “squad” without specifying the exact number.
Richard S. Hess, “The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray, Jr. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 39.

[Sigurd]

thanks for post,however, if you remember i said could you site passage,as you have done above, but i also asked you to [post 74]" no question it says kill all inside, men woman child etc leave none alive correct? than please read my op and tell me how after, you can still claim the bible teaches genocide from those passages.". you have shown that you have not done this.

Why should I defend a claim I never made? Show me where I claimed the bible teaches genocide. What do you even put into that?
I only showed you that the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob as recorded in Deuteronomy commanded genocide specifically for those groups of people. You can't circumvent that unless you are willing to throw out Deuteronomy from the Bible.
The walls of text on how the people of Canaan were evil and deserved it is irrelevant.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR Wrote:

Neither has anyone been able to show from a atheist worldview that what the Canaanites did was "bad", or that morals even make sense.

We have been through this, and your arguments were kind of proven to be stupid.

Do we have to get through this again?

You know, if you use a term or phrase... And then get absolutely humiliated for doing so... And then continue to use it as if nothing happened...

You come off as rather more "solid" than a brick wall.

EDIT: You NEVER go full retard!!