Make your point or go away man. I dont have the energy to play your games.
Here is the answer I was looking for. The Catholic answer.
1. 'Literal Commands, Literal History’
Here Trent addresses the approach that takes these texts literally, and examines the argument that God – the giver of human life – has the right to take human life, and to do so in any manner He sees fit: whether He deputizes gradual cell decay, disease, or other humans to carry this out. This approach takes into account the context of, e.g., the Canaanites, who are stated to have committed such wickedness against God that they were going to be visited by divine justice no matter what (e.g. for murdering their children) – and it’s just that rather than sending fire and brimstone from the sky, he sent the Israelites with swords. Also, even on a literal reading, it’s clear that not every Canaanite was meant to be killed (e.g. Rahab, Caleb). This approach also acknowledges the horror of the temporal suffering of the innocents (e.g. children) among the Canaanites, in an ancient ‘total war’ culture between tribes of that whole region, by pointing out that God, who loves each person, is capable of making up any finite suffering with infinite joy.
2. 'Nonliteral Commands, Literal History’
This approach involves addressing an ancient mode of speaking about reality, in which basically everything was said to be the will of God or to be commanded by God, out of recognition that technically all existence and action relies in some sense on God’s will enabling it (without distinguishing, for example, between His preferential and permissive will). E.g. someone could see a tree blossoming outside and give thanks that God ‘commanded that tree to blossom’. Under this interpretation, the ancient Israelites did kill entire groups of people, but God did not actually morally direct them to do so, and the way they told stories about their killings that framed God as commanding them, is just an ancient cultural/literary technique.
3. 'Nonliteral Commands, Nonliteral History’
God never issued these commands, and they were never carried out. Under this approach, these ancient texts are considered part of the genre of exaggerated, non-literal ‘warfare rhetoric’ of ancient tribes – and the Canaanites are not believed to have been literally destroyed at all. There would have been regional fights, but even many details in the ancient texts make clear that (despite making exaggerated ‘total destruction’ claims) a little while later, the same people still lived there. So under this interpretation, these stories weren’t meant to be taken as literal history on either level: God’s commands, or historical destruction of groups of people. They were meant to communicate something else to Israel.
Here Trent addresses the approach that takes these texts literally, and examines the argument that God – the giver of human life – has the right to take human life, and to do so in any manner He sees fit: whether He deputizes gradual cell decay, disease, or other humans to carry this out. This approach takes into account the context of, e.g., the Canaanites, who are stated to have committed such wickedness against God that they were going to be visited by divine justice no matter what (e.g. for murdering their children) – and it’s just that rather than sending fire and brimstone from the sky, he sent the Israelites with swords. Also, even on a literal reading, it’s clear that not every Canaanite was meant to be killed (e.g. Rahab, Caleb). This approach also acknowledges the horror of the temporal suffering of the innocents (e.g. children) among the Canaanites, in an ancient ‘total war’ culture between tribes of that whole region, by pointing out that God, who loves each person, is capable of making up any finite suffering with infinite joy.
2. 'Nonliteral Commands, Literal History’
This approach involves addressing an ancient mode of speaking about reality, in which basically everything was said to be the will of God or to be commanded by God, out of recognition that technically all existence and action relies in some sense on God’s will enabling it (without distinguishing, for example, between His preferential and permissive will). E.g. someone could see a tree blossoming outside and give thanks that God ‘commanded that tree to blossom’. Under this interpretation, the ancient Israelites did kill entire groups of people, but God did not actually morally direct them to do so, and the way they told stories about their killings that framed God as commanding them, is just an ancient cultural/literary technique.
3. 'Nonliteral Commands, Nonliteral History’
God never issued these commands, and they were never carried out. Under this approach, these ancient texts are considered part of the genre of exaggerated, non-literal ‘warfare rhetoric’ of ancient tribes – and the Canaanites are not believed to have been literally destroyed at all. There would have been regional fights, but even many details in the ancient texts make clear that (despite making exaggerated ‘total destruction’ claims) a little while later, the same people still lived there. So under this interpretation, these stories weren’t meant to be taken as literal history on either level: God’s commands, or historical destruction of groups of people. They were meant to communicate something else to Israel.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
