responding to common objections to bible part 4

**total relism** · 07-12-2013, 13:34

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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.

sig, i am trying to help, but your embarrassing yourself to anyone who read my op or my last post to you. First the claim was not that the bible teaches to go genocide, i am sorry if that was unclear in my wording of last post [my fault i guess]. But what i meant was, that the bible does not teach genocide true,but that the Deuteronomy passage [and others like it] did not teach isreal or tell isreal to commit genocide as you claim in those passages. As i said from your qoute

"" 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.". I was referring to just the kind of passages you sited that you say teach genocide.

what proves that you still dont read my responses or op, and that leads to your false claims is statement's like these you still make.

"The walls of text on how the people of Canaan were evil and deserved it is irrelevant."

yes indeed i did this in part of my op. However had you kept reading i deal with not just the justification of the conquest, but the way and what was ordered what happened during, such as were men woman killed? all in town killed? were inocent civilians targeted? did god order killings of entire towns etc

so last post i asked you to read my post to you under spoiler,than give me a response how you could still maintain that those passages teach as you said

"I only showed you that the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob as recorded in Deuteronomy commanded genocide specifically for those groups of people."

now you pretend with a false asumtion, that under the spolier you pretend to have read it says

"The walls of text on how the people of Canaan were evil and deserved it is irrelevant."

yet had you even taken the time to read title over them, they are not even a topic in my last post to you [most relevant material from op]. So please try and read post or even full op, before responding to me, is that to much to ask for people to do before posting responses?.

so i will post again, please read this time with response, nothing to do with justification of orders,or Canaanite sins.

what was isreal told to do?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Judgment falls on Canaanites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

most important,nothing to do with justification of conquest.
men woman children? all killed?entire town killed?how many were killed?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**total relism** · 07-12-2013, 13:43

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

TR Wrote:

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!!

I can understand the emotion from you,after all you just spend 2 pages saying how stupid i am and need to educate myself on the meaning of genocide, all the while not following or being able to support your definition you said i was stupid for. While i showed your own source and about 20 others disagreed with you,not to mention you never once took time and even admitted to not knowing the position you were attacking as genocide [the conquest]. So the fact you think i was humiliated or stupid, does not surprise me, as i showed in this thread on very topic,
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ity&highlight=

most the thread was on misconceptions of what i was saying, it took others to finally point [to you no less,people who disagreed with me]that out to posters objecting to my thread op. All one needs to do is say read post 20 on that thread, so show this is just what happened on that thread, you not taking time to understand argument.Just as you have hear. I would prefer you to bring up your response that wont deal with my argument or op on that thread, it will be easier to copy past answered already provided that show you are missing argument. As clearly show on one of my responses to your post [post 20], anyone can see if they read op, you dont deal with the op,but set up strawman to knockdown as you have done over and over and over here.

**Ironside** · 07-12-2013, 14:16

Originally Posted by total relism

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. .

Exodus 17 8-13 describes a field battle, where Moses' divine staff/hands gave the Israelis the morale combat advantage. The battle lasted until sunset. Did the Israeli fight with little girls armed with toothpicks? Or did they fight with the army they conquered a lot of areas with later on?

Deut 25 (a new source different from your original list) is clear that they hit the back of the Iraeli train first and probably inflicted civilian losses yeah. But they would only be defenseless if there's no rearguard at all (it was insufficient by the looks of it).

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.

Originally Posted by total relism

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:

And Deut are very clear that the expected response would be that Sihon would attack, lose and leave his country open for the Israeli to burn down and put fear in every surrounding nation.

I can't break someone's spine in a bar fight and claim self defense, even after he threw the first punch. I really, really can't claim self defense if I'm saying that you should let me pass peacefully because I want to break the spine of that other guy, and I know for certain that you will refuse and act provoked (leaving his defenses for a field battle), throwing the first punch.

Let me go through this:

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.”

This is before the peace offer. It implies Sihon will act poorly and that the Amorites will have a bad day afterwards.

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—

The peace offer. The one you like to quote all the time. Only from a different part, who has way less context.

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.”

The reason why the Israeli wants to pass. To invade someone else.

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.”

And here we see the reason for Sihon's poor decision making. It was an intentional plan from God. And the reason was for conquest.

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.

Oh look Sihon is aggressive, just as planned. Oh his entire army is destroyed, just as planned.

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.

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?

And the reason? We had that one earlier:
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.”

Ghengis Khan used this method.

TR, your list are the eqvalent of a defense layer claiming self defense, where part of the layer's evidence is a hand written note by the defendant saying "I'm going to murder him and take all his money". And that really did happen. You can't then simply ignore that note and focus on other evidence, that aren't as damning, but simply has that as a subtext.

**total relism** · 07-12-2013, 14:40

Originally Posted by Ironside

Exodus 17 8-13 describes a field battle, where Moses' divine staff/hands gave the Israelis the morale combat advantage. The battle lasted until sunset. Did the Israeli fight with little girls armed with toothpicks? Or did they fight with the army they conquered a lot of areas with later on?

Deut 25 (a new source different from your original list) is clear that they hit the back of the Iraeli train first and probably inflicted civilian losses yeah. But they would only be defenseless if there's no rearguard at all (it was insufficient by the looks of it).

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.

And Deut are very clear that the expected response would be that Sihon would attack, lose and leave his country open for the Israeli to burn down and put fear in every surrounding nation.

I can't break someone's spine in a bar fight and claim self defense, even after he threw the first punch. I really, really can't claim self defense if I'm saying that you should let me pass peacefully because I want to break the spine of that other guy, and I know for certain that you will refuse and act provoked (leaving his defenses for a field battle), throwing the first punch.

Let me go through this:

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.”

This is before the peace offer. It implies Sihon will act poorly and that the Amorites will have a bad day afterwards.

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—

The peace offer. The one you like to quote all the time. Only from a different part, who has way less context.

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.”

The reason why the Israeli wants to pass. To invade someone else.

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.”

And here we see the reason for Sihon's poor decision making. It was an intentional plan from God. And the reason was for conquest.

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.

Oh look Sihon is aggressive, just as planned. Oh his entire army is destroyed, just as planned.

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.

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?

And the reason? We had that one earlier:
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.”

Ghengis Khan used this method.

TR, your list are the eqvalent of a defense layer claiming self defense, where part of the layer's evidence is a hand written note by the defendant saying "I'm going to murder him and take all his money". And that really did happen. You can't then simply ignore that note and focus on other evidence, that aren't as damning, but simply has that as a subtext.

v 8 The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.

not sure what you meant by who they fought? girls or army later. So i cant respond.

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.

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.

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.

isreal was commanded to always offer peace, please show why you think under spoiler is before asking for peace?. This is after 40 year wondering and after attacked civilians etc so you are wrong on that.

7 The Lord your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He has watched over your journey through this vast wilderness. These forty years the Lord your God has been with you, and you have not lacked anything.

14 Thirty-eight years passed from the time we left Kadesh Barnea until we crossed the Zered Valley. By then, that entire generation of fighting men had perished from the camp, as the Lord had sworn to them

notice 16
18 “Today you are to pass by the region of Moab at Ar. 19 When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites.

26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent[previous] 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—

reason to pass by
land the Lord our God is giving us.

you said
"And here we see the reason for Sihon's poor decision making. It was an intentional plan from God. And the reason was for conquest. "
"Oh look Sihon is aggressive, just as planned. Oh his entire army is destroyed, just as planned."

please read my op on harden hearts and pharaoh same applies.

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.

I would like you to defend that this is what the bible meant and god, after reading my op.

lawyer
i do not mean to say the conquest was all about self defense with no conquest, maybe if you could for me read my op in full on subject, i will clear up anything that remains uncertain. Also your analogy is false, it would be more the judge [god] defendant Canaanite prosecutors ,murdered babies old/young Israelite etc. than god gives worthy death penalty to the guilty through the police who insert the injection [isreal].This of course the defendant who fights to the end that wont make peace, wont receive jail time and is captured by police.

Thank you for you great calm thoughtful post on subject.

**Kadagar_AV** · 07-12-2013, 14:49

GAH!!!

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

**total relism** · 07-12-2013, 17:25

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

GAH!!!

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

i understand the need to keep your dignity,you feel you must put me down to feel better about yourself,this is common. No question your friends and dedicated followers on forum will enjoy the post above and your name calling, hell i enjoyed above post. But just because you lose on content with multiple subjects, does not mean you have to degrade to logical fallacies. A quick search will show list of logical fallacies, such as hear.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/0...cal-fallacies/

you more than anyone on this thread commit many. People resort to this to take away from subject and content, when they have nothing else to argue, they start with name calling emotional posts etc such as you have done on this thread, a few examples below.

Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks.

or
ad hominem
attack on person not argument

Red herring-an attempt to change the subject to divert attention from the original issue.

Strawman- an argument based on an misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

these are your most common. You may win the name calling battle [i chose not to engage] or the emotional rant battle,but as far as content,logic, things related to topic's, did god order genocide,what is definition of genocide,atheist morality these can only be won by facts,data etc your straw mans and logical fallacies have no authority regarding these topics.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 07-12-2013, 17:51

Originally Posted by total relism

hell i enjoyed above post

"But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips" - Colossians 3:8

Swearing is un-Christian, remember what comes out of your mouth will condemn you.

I think you should spend a lot less time on these debates and a lot more meditating upon scripture and actually evangelizing.

**Kadagar_AV** · 07-12-2013, 17:58

Originally Posted by total relism

i understand the need to keep your dignity,you feel you must put me down to feel better about yourself,this is common. No question your friends and dedicated followers on forum will enjoy the post above

You REALLY don't get this forum, do you?

What you fail to get about yourself, is that you are a fanatic. Take a step back, and then put forth ONE thought.

Not a wall of text, mind you, but one thought.

Then, let this thought linger among your peers. You can feed this single thought some, sure. But pretty please DO handle that single thought.

Once THAT is dealt with, bring on your other thought.

Mind you, not the "other thought that you had already planned regardless of what people say", but the thought that actually SPRUNG UP during the debate on the first thought.

Your basic problem, is that you try to come onto these boards with a pre-arranged deck of cards. See, it's very numerical... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A.

Then you expect a discussion as to why this is the optimal setting of cards, regardless of the fact that you are missing a "1" and that you suddenly involve letters in what otherwise could be seen as a numerical order (except for the "1")

What I am saying is, let's switch sports from cards and try out a day skiing on the mountain with me :)

If you still don't like it, we play poker in the afterski. Necessarily we wont abide your rules, but we can play a game of poker with your cards.

**total relism** · 07-14-2013, 06:09

@ 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.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

"But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips" - Colossians 3:8

Swearing is un-Christian, remember what comes out of your mouth will condemn you.

I think you should spend a lot less time on these debates and a lot more meditating upon scripture and actually evangelizing.

thanks for concern, i however never used filthy language,i did however find a clip funny.But thanks for watching out for me, i often do not what i am suppose to. I happen to find topics above very important, how do you evangelize a person who says to you, the church invented the divinity of Christ [dan brown,Muslims etc] he never even claimed to be god. Or why believe in a angry hateful evil god that commands genocide and murders babies, or a god that hardened hearts only to punish people for it?. How would you respond?.

**Whacker** · 07-14-2013, 06:24

These threads are STILL going on?

**Lemur** · 07-14-2013, 06:39

Originally Posted by Whacker

These threads are STILL going on?

There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 07-14-2013, 07:56

It's like the Resident Evil series. Just when you thought they couldn't make another, they somehow do it.

**Ironside** · 07-14-2013, 11:55

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

Originally Posted by total relism

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".

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

Originally Posted by total relism

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** · 07-14-2013, 12:39

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.

Originally Posted by Ironside

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.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 07-14-2013, 13:47

Originally Posted by total relism

thanks for concern, i however never used filthy language,i did however find a clip funny.But thanks for watching out for me, i often do not what i am suppose to. I happen to find topics above very important, how do you evangelize a person who says to you, the church invented the divinity of Christ [dan brown,Muslims etc] he never even claimed to be god. Or why believe in a angry hateful evil god that commands genocide and murders babies, or a god that hardened hearts only to punish people for it?. How would you respond?.

I would answer that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1: Cor 1:18)". We should be looking to win hearts, not minds - that is the only way people are going to be saved.

What God ordered against the Canaanites would certainly be judged as genocide by modern standards. Would you contest that the Flood was genocide? Was God unjust in sending it? We should remember that the wages of sin are death and none of us are entitled to anything better, it is a testament to God's mercy and forgiveness that any are saved at all.

I would also say that God did harden pharaoh's heart, so that he might show his glory in releasing the Israelites from bondage. "O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Romans 9:20-1)".

**total relism** · 07-14-2013, 14:26

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I would answer that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1: Cor 1:18)". We should be looking to win hearts, not minds - that is the only way people are going to be saved.

What God ordered against the Canaanites would certainly be judged as genocide by modern standards. Would you contest that the Flood was genocide? Was God unjust in sending it? We should remember that the wages of sin are death and none of us are entitled to anything better, it is a testament to God's mercy and forgiveness that any are saved at all.

I would also say that God did harden pharaoh's heart, so that he might show his glory in releasing the Israelites from bondage. "O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Romans 9:20-1)".

nice post, i can certainly see your point. But what do you do when someone says i dont believe in god because so and so conquest of Canaan etc I had many stumbling blocks in my way evolution etc before i could but faith in Christ, how would you answer those people?.

genocide, been though this,please support with definition of genocide [modern], i will proceed to show that the biblical account is does not fit.I would say flood is ify,because in genocide it is about extermination, power,racism etc while flood was judgment and moral reasons. No one would say a judge giving death penalty [no matter how large guilty pop is] a genocide.

I would say god hardened pharaohs heart as well, just as pharaoh did and wanted. Let me ask you, do you believe in free will? do you believe in predestination? do you believe god can control human free will and thought?. Romans 9 is the chapter to try and support it, and of course Jeremiah and potter. I would disagree with above that you seem to believe.

**Kadagar_AV** · 07-14-2013, 15:47

TR,

I would say flood is ify,because in genocide it is about extermination, power,racism etc while flood was judgment and moral reasons. No one would say a judge giving death penalty [no matter how large guilty pop is] a genocide.

Sometimes you really, really worry me.

**total relism** · 07-15-2013, 14:00

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

TR,

Sometimes you really, really worry me.

I worry myself.

**Kadagar_AV** · 07-16-2013, 00:21

Click image for larger version.

Name: 250px-JudgeDeathIrving.jpg
Views: 101
Size: 40.7 KB
ID: 10415

You are of course aware that you put your logic on the level of this guy?

EDIT: Link to read up on Judge Death

**total relism** · 07-16-2013, 02:04

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

You are of course aware that you put your logic on the level of this guy?

EDIT: Link to read up on Judge Death

i would disagree fully, if you base it on bible. God [and me] happens to be very much pro life, in spite of sin.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished;
exodus 34 6-7.

**Ironside** · 07-16-2013, 09:57

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

Originally Posted by total relism

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?

Originally Posted by total relism

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** · 07-16-2013, 11:28

Originally Posted by Ironside

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** · 07-16-2013, 13:54

Question. Why has this inane topic required 4 parts?

Thread: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Thread Tools

Display

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Members thankful for this post (2):

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Re: responding to common objections to bible part 4

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions