responding to common objections to bible part 4

[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.