responding to common objections to bible part 4

[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.