responding to common objections to bible part 4

[Ironside]

Deuteronomy 25
yes isreal had no army at this pint,they just left as slaves from Egypt.

17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.

those that lagged behind would be old,young,sick etc. i am pretty sure that time they had guard [if any at time] in front.

They had enough military force to have a field battle that lasted until the evening. That also means that the Amalekites did attack in large enouh numbers for it to be more than a raid so the military number needs to be quite large. The Amalekites were certainly the aggressor in this particular battle, so in this case it's self-defense certainly.

you said "To be clear, as long as you're moving together with a group that constitutes a military threat, you're not defenseless even if you count as a civilian and the defenses around you are insufficient. "

please support this with anything,they are not in the land of the Amalekites at this time.

Pretty much every older army had civilians with it and following it. So any attack that would involve those in any way (like attacking the luggage train or supplies)would be an attack on civilians. That would make most battles in history fall into "attacking the innocent and defenseless".

defense
i said they were attacked first, that is true, i said they meant to pass through land and peace doing so, that is true, i said they were attacked first and later fought back [counter attack] that is true. That is what i have said from beginning. Its like saying england should have never invaded nazi germany because that would be offensive war and attacking. Especially when they would continue attacks.

In this world, England ran articles about about conquering Germany in a way that would strike fear in the rest of the world by 1938.
Also, I take it you know that Germany claimed self defense when attacking Poland? They used the old tradition of a phoney attack. And that's the thing, if you make an offer you know they'll refuse, even if it appear nice on the surface, it's not an honest offer. And if you're expecting to conquer their entire nation before they've done anything because you already know that they will refuse your "fair" offer, then you can't really claim self-defense.

It's murder, pretending to be self-defense so you can get away with it.

you said
"And here the result. Taking all towns and wiping out the entire Amorite population. Killing the entire population, leaving no survivors of an entire people constitutes as genocide correct?"


I agree fully, but this is not what god ordered or what happened. Please read my op or post 92.

That's a gem.To paraphrase "those passages contains the language of the time and/or hyperbole".

Ahem, "the Bible as a summary of old contradicting texts that contains lies, hyperboles and propaganda, with some small grains of truth." Prove me wrong. Also refering to archeological findings falls under "small grains of truth".

To be clear, for you to get any arguments out of this, we have to pretend that it isn't totally ridiculous that they walked 40 years a distance you can walk in less than 40 weeks by walking 1 hour a day. That this absolutly gigantic group of people, walking from water hole to water hole (when they got drained), never needing outside food wasn't stuff of legend and that simply showing off the manna thing would convert any disbelievers.

That means that even if the divine wonders of God were true, people didn't act like people. So there's not even internal consistancy.

But since you do decide to open the door of making parts of the Bible questionable...

Your later comment are about justification, not self defense and it contains "the language of the time as well as hyperbole".

[total relism]

I enjoy your post and thank you.


Just wondering if you saw this

@ Ironside


I was thinking of our court room analogy, i was just rereading parts of a book on the conquest here

Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Bible...r+in+the+bible

i remembered they used a modern analogy to conquest, so i thought i would share it with you.



modern analogy of conquest-modified[shortened] from holy war in the bible Christian morality and an old testament problem.

1]the land of Canaan being a piece of federally owned land legally inherited, state owned Territory by previous president held for good of country.
2]current occupant a religious sect whose rituals include ,incest,bestiality, and burning children alive as a sacrifice. For hundreds of years previous administrations have turned a blind eye to their activities and have refused to evict tenants.
3]A group of civilians want to take up occupancy and have signed agreement to use land in the way the government has saved land for, also promising to not follow in the sects criminal activities. Agreeing if they violate agreement and commit the crimes, they will as well be evicted from the land.
4]the current culture of the sect has become so persuasive in area,that almost no person who lives there cannot avoid getting caught up up in it, and CNN is reporting more and more people are getting involved in the crimes of the sect [child sacrifice etc].
5]The sect is heavily armed and will not leave unless evicted by force. The president authorizes the military to evict by force the occupants.

They had enough military force to have a field battle that lasted until the evening. That also means that the Amalekites did attack in large enouh numbers for it to be more than a raid so the military number needs to be quite large. The Amalekites were certainly the aggressor in this particular battle, so in this case it's self-defense certainly.



Pretty much every older army had civilians with it and following it. So any attack that would involve those in any way (like attacking the luggage train or supplies)would be an attack on civilians. That would make most battles in history fall into "attacking the innocent and defenseless".




In this world, England ran articles about about conquering Germany in a way that would strike fear in the rest of the world by 1938.
Also, I take it you know that Germany claimed self defense when attacking Poland? They used the old tradition of a phoney attack. And that's the thing, if you make an offer you know they'll refuse, even if it appear nice on the surface, it's not an honest offer. And if you're expecting to conquer their entire nation before they've done anything because you already know that they will refuse your "fair" offer, then you can't really claim self-defense.

It's murder, pretending to be self-defense so you can get away with it.



That's a gem.To paraphrase "those passages contains the language of the time and/or hyperbole".

Ahem, "the Bible as a summary of old contradicting texts that contains lies, hyperboles and propaganda, with some small grains of truth." Prove me wrong. Also refering to archeological findings falls under "small grains of truth".

To be clear, for you to get any arguments out of this, we have to pretend that it isn't totally ridiculous that they walked 40 years a distance you can walk in less than 40 weeks by walking 1 hour a day. That this absolutly gigantic group of people, walking from water hole to water hole (when they got drained), never needing outside food wasn't stuff of legend and that simply showing off the manna thing would convert any disbelievers.

That means that even if the divine wonders of God were true, people didn't act like people. So there's not even internal consistancy.

But since you do decide to open the door of making parts of the Bible questionable...

Your later comment are about justification, not self defense and it contains "the language of the time as well as hyperbole".

thanks for reply.


Deuteronomy 25 time, yes isreal had army, exodus 17 no they did not. But i am glad we both agree self defense.





isreal was in unique position in the attack in exodus by the Amalekites,because they had just got out of slavery. But even in attacks recorded in bible, most all were military vs military, not everyone [very few] said attack on weak or civilians etc.






so your saying asking for passage to your land [with money given to them]than being attacked by their army for not letting you pass counts as

"It's murder, pretending to be self-defense so you can get away with it. ".

I have to disagree,also if as you say some have done, ask rules they wont agree to just to attack and kill them take their land etc you cant then apply to bible amount unless its there. That would be bad logic to say at one point this happened so it must have happened another time. As far as isreal going after land or suposidley wiping them out, please read my op. Also the murders would you not agree were Canaanites? [difference between kill and murder].




you said
" "the Bible as a summary of old contradicting texts that contains lies, hyperboles and propaganda, with some small grains of truth." Prove me wrong. Also refering to archeological findings falls under "small grains of truth". "



I am sorry you have misunderstood my op. The bible is 100% accurate non contradictory accounts of past events with no error. However people spoke in the language of their day, just as all would around them and how they would all understand writings. So we should understand what the writers meant in their language in their day,not what us english speaking different grammar say they meant if they said it today.





you said

"To be clear, for you to get any arguments out of this, we have to pretend that it isn't totally ridiculous that they walked 40 years a distance you can walk in less than 40 weeks by walking 1 hour a day. That this absolutly gigantic group of people, walking from water hole to water hole (when they got drained), never needing outside food wasn't stuff of legend and that simply showing off the manna thing would convert any disbelievers. "


i am not sure what your saying here could you please type again?. i dont want to respond to the wrong question. I think your saying why did it take isreal so long to enter promise land?also how did they eat?. These are great questions if that is what your asking and would love to answer them, please just say yes or type what your question is.




you end
"That means that even if the divine wonders of God were true, people didn't act like people. So there's not even internal consistancy. But since you do decide to open the door of making parts of the Bible questionable... Your later comment are about justification, not self defense and it contains "the language of the time as well as hyperbole".


I think I would have to understand your above question to answer this. You said people dont act like people not internal constant, i have no idea what your referring to hear, please let me know next post. I would never open the door to any part of the bible being questionable, so im not sure were you get that, other than misunderstanding of my position in op.

[Ironside]

so your saying asking for passage to your land [with money given to them]than being attacked by their army for not letting you pass counts as

"It's murder, pretending to be self-defense so you can get away with it. ".

I have to disagree,also if as you say some have done, ask rules they wont agree to just to attack and kill them take their land etc you cant then apply to bible amount unless its there. That would be bad logic to say at one point this happened so it must have happened another time. As far as isreal going after land or suposidley wiping them out, please read my op. Also the murders would you not agree were Canaanites? [difference between kill and murder].

For the bolded part. It's exactly what's said in the bible. Before the offer is sent, God proclaims that he will lure the king out and that the Israelis should conquer the land in a way that will strike fear into the surrounding people. After that the offer is sent and rejected in the way as predicted.

If I send someone an offer I know they will refuse and then takes the refusal as an invitation to do what I planned to do before the offer, I'm not interested in peace. The only reason I'm making the offer is to make me look good.

you said
" "the Bible as a summary of old contradicting texts that contains lies, hyperboles and propaganda, with some small grains of truth." Prove me wrong. Also refering to archeological findings falls under "small grains of truth". "

I am sorry you have misunderstood my op. The bible is 100% accurate non contradictory accounts of past events with no error. However people spoke in the language of their day, just as all would around them and how they would all understand writings. So we should understand what the writers meant in their language in their day,not what us english speaking different grammar say they meant if they said it today.

And history of their day consisted of hyperbole, lying, "spicing things up" etc, etc often to make yourself look good, while your enemies look bad. The idea of writing down history exactly as it was is a relativly recent idea (well some Greeks had that idea, but that ideal died out quite quickly). And it's here this selctive reading comes up. Is the passage a lie? A hyperbole? A rewriting of a myth you heard? A rewriting of some old event that really happened? A partial truth? A full truth?

you said

"To be clear, for you to get any arguments out of this, we have to pretend that it isn't totally ridiculous that they walked 40 years a distance you can walk in less than 40 weeks by walking 1 hour a day. That this absolutly gigantic group of people, walking from water hole to water hole (when they got drained), never needing outside food wasn't stuff of legend and that simply showing off the manna thing would convert any disbelievers. "


i am not sure what your saying here could you please type again?. i dont want to respond to the wrong question. I think your saying why did it take isreal so long to enter promise land?also how did they eat?. These are great questions if that is what your asking and would love to answer them, please just say yes or type what your question is.

A people of this size would consume plenty of olympic pools of water a day and quickly drain anything less than rivers and very large oasises.

See it from this perspective. They would be seen and known, by other people. So you have this group of people, several times larger than any group you've ever seen, who never need to supply food because it comes from the sky and that migrates around for 40 years. They would be the stuff of legend by pretty much anyone and that myth would spread far and wide, as you can see other stories have done. Yet the only source is the bible. That means that none really bothered about it. It's the flying dutch superfleet or several hundred ships (instead of simply one ship as the myth goes) that you can pin point on a map and find and see for yourself with some effort. None talked about it. That's ridiculously silly.

[total relism]

For the bolded part. It's exactly what's said in the bible. Before the offer is sent, God proclaims that he will lure the king out and that the Israelis should conquer the land in a way that will strike fear into the surrounding people. After that the offer is sent and rejected in the way as predicted.

If I send someone an offer I know they will refuse and then takes the refusal as an invitation to do what I planned to do before the offer, I'm not interested in peace. The only reason I'm making the offer is to make me look good.



And history of their day consisted of hyperbole, lying, "spicing things up" etc, etc often to make yourself look good, while your enemies look bad. The idea of writing down history exactly as it was is a relativly recent idea (well some Greeks had that idea, but that ideal died out quite quickly). And it's here this selctive reading comes up. Is the passage a lie? A hyperbole? A rewriting of a myth you heard? A rewriting of some old event that really happened? A partial truth? A full truth?




A people of this size would consume plenty of olympic pools of water a day and quickly drain anything less than rivers and very large oasises.

See it from this perspective. They would be seen and known, by other people. So you have this group of people, several times larger than any group you've ever seen, who never need to supply food because it comes from the sky and that migrates around for 40 years. They would be the stuff of legend by pretty much anyone and that myth would spread far and wide, as you can see other stories have done. Yet the only source is the bible. That means that none really bothered about it. It's the flying dutch superfleet or several hundred ships (instead of simply one ship as the myth goes) that you can pin point on a map and find and see for yourself with some effort. None talked about it. That's ridiculously silly.

I see what your saying however

I am sorry i am a bit lost on were we are at what passages. Earlier you posted on certain chapter, and i had to show previously they offered peace that was rejected than they were attacked. Also the fact that god new they would reject a peace offer,does not make it so they chose to reject the peace offer, as they had passage through the land. It also ignores the 400 years prior. You made it sound as if god/isreal made rules on purpose that they would not agree to,then use as reason to attack.



you said
"And history of their day consisted of hyperbole, lying, "spicing things up" etc, etc often to make yourself look good, while your enemies look bad. The idea of writing down history exactly as it was is a relativly recent idea (well some Greeks had that idea, but that ideal died out quite quickly). And it's here this selctive reading comes up. Is the passage a lie? A hyperbole? A rewriting of a myth you heard? A rewriting of some old event that really happened? A partial truth? A full truth? "




I am not sure how your not getting it, please read my op once more. They were not lying, they were speaking just as they would in their day,understood how it would be in their day. I i won a boxing match and went back to joshuas time and told them hey, i just kicked his ass. Would i be lying to them as i did not literally hit his butt with my foot?. If i told you i kicked a guys ass in a boxing match today, would you assume i used my foot to hit his butt?. As i said last post

" However people spoke in the language of their day, just as all would around them and how they would all understand writings. So we should understand what the writers meant in their language in their day,not what us english speaking different grammar say they meant if they said it today."


so the account is written history and truth,written in language of the day, not modern english language.




you said
"A people of this size would consume plenty of olympic pools of water a day and quickly drain anything less than rivers and very large oasises."

and

"See it from this perspective. They would be seen and known, by other people. So you have this group of people, several times larger than any group you've ever seen, who never need to supply food because it comes from the sky and that migrates around for 40 years. They would be the stuff of legend by pretty much anyone and that myth would spread far and wide, as you can see other stories have done. Yet the only source is the bible. That means that none really bothered about it. It's the flying dutch superfleet or several hundred ships (instead of simply one ship as the myth goes) that you can pin point on a map and find and see for yourself with some effort. None talked about it. That's ridiculously silly."



a few things to respond to all off topic, but not many posting so who cares.


read exodus 15 22-27 and 17 1-7, the 40 years was a time of teaching for the Israelite, a time to learn to rely on god alone for all needs, he provided food and water these would stop after entering the promise land josh 5.12. God supplied all their needs (Deuteronomy 8:4; Nehemiah 9:21) Also my op does not get into it much, but the total number of people is disputable and argued. Aslo a claim they would drain rivers is certainly exaggerated.


they were known by people in area, read op starts with
the Canaanites were aware of god and his power josh2 9-11 9 9-10 also rahab account, they all new the miracles of god with isreal coming out of egypt and it is said were even afraid of isreal.

also calling it a myth,does nothing to prove it,unless you can prove it,it is baseless.

several times larger
this is not true, they were outnumbered in many accounts, a reason many did not want to enter promise land,scared another reason to think the numbers should be translated different as my op said. etc

not sure what your saying with flying ship.

[Greyblades]

Question. Why has this inane topic required 4 parts?