SPLIT: Bible verses that show God is mean

[patrick457]

A good afternoon (at least, it is afternoon in where I am) to you. Now just to do some more “pontificating” and “rationalizing” :

If the flood is LOCAL then how come the “infallible word of God” says that the Ark ended on the Top of mount Ararat???

DO you know how many thousands of feet above the sea Level Mount Ararat is???

How come the “infallible” bible says that as a consequence of this “Local Flood” the Ark ended there??

1.) To say that the Bible is “infallible” is actually a misnomer - as “infallible” implies that that thing can make decisions. A book - a set of pages bound under a cover - can never make a decision by itself any more than a rock or a pencil could think. More properly speaking, the Bible is “inerrant”. That said, some Protestant denominations and Catholics understand the word “inerrant” quite differently.

2.) Genesis 8:4 says that:

And the ark rested on the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of 'Ararat. And the waters were going and decreasing until the tenth month. On the first day of the tenth month, the heads of the mountains could be seen.

Contrary to popular belief, “Ararat” is not the name of the mountain(s) where the ark landed but the area or the region in which the mountains are located. Obviously a boat (even one as large as the ark) cannot rest on multiple mountains. Thus, some suggest that either:
(1) the Hebrew preposition 'al should perhaps be translated “among,” or
(2) that the plural “mountains” should be understood in the sense of “mountain range”, or
(3) that the plural indicates an indefinite singular and thus translated “one of the mountains”.

The land known as Ararat in Hebrew is usually thought to correspond to the kingdom of Urartu in the Armenian Highland. While the mountain commonly identified today as Mount Ararat can be a good candidate (since it is geographically within ancient Urartu), it could also allow for other elevated ranges within the scope of the area. The Bible only talks about unspecified mountains - which in turn are located in a very wide area.

Many ancient versions and commentaries of the Bible are unanimous in saying that Genesis refers to the “mountains” within Ararat/Urartu - while rarely giving a specific location. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 1.89, 93), for example, talks about the ark resting on “a mountain in Armenia”, and later quoting Berossus the Chaldean, who says that it was “in Armenia, at the mountain of the Kordyaeans” (a reference to the Kurds and the region of Corduene, which in the 1st century BC was taken up by the kingdom of Armenia as a vassal state before it passed over to the Romans).

The Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, the Targumim, and the Syriac translation of the Bible, the P’shitta took up Berossus’ opinion that the mountain was in Armenia-Corduene and rendered “the mountains of Ararat” thus:

Targum Onkelos: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, which is the month of Nisan, in the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Qadron; the name of the one mountain is Qardania, and the name of the other mountain Irmenia; and there was builded the city of Armenia in the land of the east.”
Targum Pseudo-Johnathan A: “On the mountains of Qardun”
Syriac P’shitta: “On the mountains of Qardu”

Finally, St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate rendered the whole thing as super montes Armeniae, “over the mountains of Armenia,” perhaps basing his understanding on the above tradition.

And, from all that we can infer from the text - again contrary to what you were led to believe from the over-simplified depictions of the story in popular media - the ark only rested “on” the mountain; it does not have to be on the peak itself.

The biggest question I have for you then is: If it was just a Local flood, then the only thing God needed to do was to tell Noah to leave the area with His family because he was planing to murder every living thing on the area, All Human, Babies, and Inocent animals too!

That is all God needed to do if he was in fact planing just to murder all this people and animals in this area of the world.

There is one good reason why God didn’t just send Noah packing: the building of the ark may have been intended to be a warning signal to tidy up their ways - after all, in the two other related examples in the Bible where God delivers judgment to a particular area, He would usually send a signal first to see if any would listen. For example, the two messengers to Sodom and Gomorrah before it got destroyed (Genesis 19:1) and Jonah to Nineveh (Jonah 3:3; this is a sort of anti-example, as God did not punish Nineveh after the inhabitants repented, much to Jonah’s chagrin!).

It’s not like Noah finished building the Ark in a day or two - it obviously took him some time! Would there be not time to tell people, “Hey, you know that there would be a flood here soon? Why not come and join us?” Surely Noah was righteous and blameless enough to tell the guys down the street that they need to repent!

 

[patrick457]

Now lets think about this for a second: God got frustrated and decided to wipe out all life on earth:
Last time I checked, only reason to get frustrated and loose it, is because things do not go according to plan. My question is: Did our “Omniscient” God was unable to foresee that thins was going to happen when he decided to create man (or even before he decided to create men)?? SO much for God’s Omniscience.

So suddenly this whole thing about man being inclined to “Sin continuously” got God by surprise, and HE got pissed, and decided to exterminate all mankind and Animals.

First, let’s address God here.

Omniscience, of knowing all things, must be clarified. Judeo-Christian belief holds that God is timeless. Past, present and future for God can be seen as a whole. This much is commonly asserted. What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that God also knows how things would turn out if differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making. God knows what would happen if you forgot your car keys, but He also knows what would have happened if you did had them, or even if you do not have a car at all.

Now, the word for “grieved” here (translated as “repented” in the KJV) is nacham.
The question here is: is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something – even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen?

Now watch this: What do babies have done so evil that deserve for God to drown them to death?
I do not care if you can prove me that they were the product of illicit sex between Fallen angels and Men.
They are still innocent and not responsible for the whole thing. But Nooooo…, Never mind that! Lets just freaking kill them all!

What evil do most animals in the world have done to deserve being drowned to death?
Nothing!

The Omniscient Jehovah just got super Pissed because the whole “sin” thing got him by surprise, and He decided to kill everyone (except Noah’s family, and the 2 or 7 of every kind), and start all over.

Now, check this out: Did this massive murder of all living things on earth took care of the Sin Problem??

Here we get to the root of the complaints: the so-called “Argument by Outrage.” It usually starts with someone finding some event in the Bible that they find offensive: be it the slaughter of the Amalekites or the Canaanites, or even something like eternal punishment. The critic then recounts this in such a manner as to imply that by itself, the event is enough of a moral outrage that there can be no argument or counter to it.

It runs like:

1. 
   *]God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)
   *]God ordered the killing of people, a few times including children/babies (Authority: Bible)
   *]The killing of children can never be a ‘just’ act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)
   *]So, in light of 2-3, God ordered an ‘unjust act’. (authority: substitution of terms)
   *]Doing ‘unjust acts’, or ordering that an ‘unjust act’ be done, are themselves ‘unjust’.
   *]Thus, based on points 2-4, God committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
   *]Therefore, based on points 2-6 but contrary to point 1, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)
   
   One should note however that the whole argument stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in point 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at constructing a hard contradiction this way fails.
   
   (Continued next post)

 

[patrick457]

This would require the critic to show two things convincingly: (1) show that these exceptions do NOT hold or (2) show that although there ARE legitimate exceptions, there could not be any valid exceptions that would be operative in our biblical case.

It is usually (wrongly) assumed that people who lived in that day and age (you know, “Those Canaan Days”…) acted just like us early 21st-century people and would have reacted with the same immediate moral outrage as we did. Even so, an arguer needs to keep mind of the following to make their “argument by outrage” more than just an emotional appeal: this oh-so glorious, technological world we live in is not the Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical world; therefore, our thinking are not the same as the thinking of the Biblical characters and writers, and their values are therefore not our values, or vice-versa. It would just be plain incorrect to try to apply our morality and values to theirs.

One example of this cultural difference would be the rather distressing part of Psalm 137, verses 8-9:

O devastated daughter of Babylon! Happy the one who repays you your wage which you paid to us!
Happy the one who takes and dashes your children against the rock!

At first glance, this may seem to be just more cruelty to innocent babies. One should note that in Ancient Near Eastern warfare, killing pregnant mothers and dashing children or babies are actually standard practice, their “innocence” notwithstanding (cf. 2 Kings 8:12; Isaiah 13:16; Hosea 13:16; Nahum 3:10).

Also, it just reflects the frankness of the ancient Near Eastern mind. To this day, we still have vestiges of this “hateful” thinking. Let’s say that your boss at work just picks on you for apparently no reason, maybe you’ll get annoyed or angry at him and think “Ain’t it better if he just suffers!” Of course, even if you think these things, you would seldom repeat these thoughts openly in polite company today because they’re very rude, would you not? Even so, this wish for war and death to fall upon Babylon is simply an example of Near Eastern imprecation.

A Lebanese immigrant to America named Abraham Mitrie Rihbany (1869-1944), author of The Syrian Christ, interestingly devotes an entire chapter on Imprecations in his book. In one portion he writes thus:

The Oriental’s impetuosity and effusiveness make his imprecatory prayers, especially to the “unaccustomed ears” of Americans, blood-curdling. And I confess that on my last visit to Syria, my countrymen’s (and especially my countrywomen’s) bursts of pious wrath jarred heavily upon me. In his oral bombardment of his enemy the Oriental hurls such missiles as, “May God burn the bones of your fathers”; “May God exterminate your seed from the earth”; “May God cut off your supply of bread (yakta rizkak)”; “May you have nothing but the ground for a bed and the sky for covering”; “May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed”; and similar expressions.

The language of the insults is strikingly similar to the rather “cruel” petitions of some of the Psalms. Such wishes were expressed in clan fights and quarrels in Rihbany’s native Syria; and yet: “…the Syrians are not so cruel and heartless as such imprecations, especially when cast in cold type, would lead one to believe.” Such petitions actually serve a purpose as a “safety-valve” through which the Oriental vents his wrath.

It also reflects a rather standard Middle Eastern thinking: one’s personal enemy is, by extension, also God’s enemy (this thinking is also present in the Bible, note!), so it would be pretty natural to call on your more powerful ally for help against your opponent.

Finally, Rihbany notes that:

As a rule the Orientals quarrel much, but fight little. By the time the two antagonists have cursed and reviled each other so profusely they cool off, and thus graver consequences are averted. The Anglo-Saxon has outgrown such habits. In the first place the highly complex social order in which he lives calls for much more effective methods for the settling of disputes, and, in the second place, he has no time to waste on mere words. And just as the Anglo-Saxon smiles at the wordy fights of the Oriental, the Oriental shudders at the swiftness of the Anglo-Saxon in using his fists and his pistol. Both are needy of the grace of God.

Of course, we need to address another baby-related topic: the murder of the Amalekites.

This would seem barbaric to our eyes, but a different light can be thrown on it by the finding that the Amalekites were probably desert nomads who, because of the lack of life-sustaining resources in the desert, survived by raiding others, and had raided Israel several times in the previous years, according to the Bible. From the Israelite POV, this would essentially spell death. Raiders in general would often target villages after the harvest had been taken in. When raiders stole the harvest of a community, it would not only mean they went hungry, but that they had no seeds to plant for a harvest the following year. Starvation was a very real possibility.

 

[patrick457]

Now we get to the issue of the Amalekite women and children. It is probably highly doubtful that the Amalekite women and children had no knowledge of the suffering that was being inflicted on these people by their menfolk. They probably not only knew about it but maybe were even complicit in it. What must it take to know of the suffering being inflicted on a people by your husbands and fathers and yet to be happy for it to continue? If they were innocent bystanders who objected to their menfolk raiding the Israelites, should they not have pushed for Amalekite migration and attempted settlement somewhere with more fertile soil, or urged them to seek work in more prosperous areas and bring home an honest living to their families instead of taking from other wandering tribes? Also, the male children may have been trained for war from a young age, as happens in some local cultures (one example would be the famous Sparta in Greece).

Another reason for the murder of the Amalekite women and children as well as the men is that with the men responsible for the Amalekite raiding killed by the Israelites, survival for the rest would have been very difficult, because they’d have little to live on and it would have taken a while for them to move through the desert to somewhere else, and a slow death from starvation, thirst and exposure may well have ensued, or, with no one left to fight to protect them, capture by rival marauding slave traders. A sort of “mercy killing”, if you will.

Here we see a disagreement between the ancients and the moderns. The ancients believed that a sudden death was preferable to an anticipated life of future suffering (e.g., slavery), an anticipated death by starvation/thirst/exposure, or of torture (e.g., capture by rival rulers). We also see this in the Bible as well: when the Israelites are defeated in the battle of Gilboa, the wounded King Saul asked his armor-bearer to kill him to escape the ignominy of capture. Because the armor-bearer refused to do so, Saul is forced to “fall on his sword”; the armor-bearer also killed himself afterwards (1 Samuel 31:3-5). Another good parallel would be the incident in Masada (73 AD), where the Jewish defenders killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans, who laid siege to the fortress (even when Judaism strongly discouraged suicide).

Now we get back to Noah. Why would God destroy even the kids and the babes, when they have not shared in the sins of their fathers?

Note that behind all these, patterns show up: household members share in the mis/fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). To cite the “good” examples: Noah’s family was saved from the Flood by virtue of Noah being pleasing in the Lord’s eyes; Lot’s wife and daughters were saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because Lot was the only righteous man there; Rahab’s family were saved from the fall of Jericho because she helped the Israelite spies.

Pattern number two would be that these judgments are for publicly-recognized cruelty and violence of an extreme and widespread nature. The flood and the fire and brimstone happened because God took note of the crimes. Some of the Canaanite tribes and the Amalekites were being a burden to the then-newly formed Israel (and perhaps to a few other nations as well).

Another, less visible pattern would be that these judgments are preceded by periods of warning/exposure to truth. For example:

1. 
   *]The people of Noah’s time received their warning in the form of the ark and were given ample time while the ark was still under construction;
   *]Sodom and Gomorrah, like the Antediluvians above, had been given time and had the two messengers before they were finally destroyed;
   *]The destruction of the cities of the plain themselves may have served as a sign to the Canaanites;
   *]Some of the Canaanite tribes have had some exposure to the Hebrews before (after all, Abraham had ties with the Amorites and the Hittites!);
   *]During the 400 years, the Canaanites would have still been surrounded by the other offspring of Abraham - the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and the Ishmaelites and would have got some “knowledge” from them;
   *]Finally, after the Exodus, word ‘got out’ about the Hebrews, and made its way into Canaan (news spread fast; after all, Amalek knew of the Exodus and attacked Israel within a matter of days!). They had a forty-year period there.
   *]Likewise, after the drying up of the Jordan and before the fall of Jericho, the whole land knew and the “innocent” groups could have begun migrating (as was common in those days).

 

[SanctusEnigma40]

patrick457:

Now we get back to Noah. Why would God destroy even the kids and the babes, when they have not shared in the sins of their fathers?

Note that behind all these, patterns show up: household members share in the mis/fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). To cite the “good” examples: Noah’s family was saved from the Flood by virtue of Noah being pleasing in the Lord’s eyes; Lot’s wife and daughters were saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because Lot was the only righteous man there; Rahab’s family were saved from the fall of Jericho because she helped the Israelite spies.

Pattern number two would be that these judgments are for publicly-recognized cruelty and violence of an extreme and widespread nature. The flood and the fire and brimstone happened because God took note of the crimes. Some of the Canaanite tribes and the Amalekites were being a burden to the then-newly formed Israel (and perhaps to a few other nations as well).

Pattern # 2 Justification for God murdering, slaughtering, and butchering the innocent is not granted.
He could had let them live and given them to the israelites, or convert them and therefore not having to butchered them.

You try and try hard but you have not come even close to Justify all the atrocities committed by God in the old testament.

Have you run out of rationalizations yet??
Keep posting, I enjoy reading them!

God is never Justify in murdering the innocent it doesn’t matter what way you try to get out of it.

Is being a Christian means that I have to surrender my will to a being that can do all of this atrocities with impunity, then i do not want any part of it.

Sorry but God is not Justified in commiting all this clearly evil acts.

The fact that you keep trying to Justify God evil actions tells me more about you than about God.

You should be ashamed of yourself when talking to people telling them: God Loves you, and still referring to the same Old Testament God who committed all this unspeakable acts of cruelty and mercilessness.

And no, the bible is not inerrant even by catholic standards. It is full of contradictions, plagued with Anachronisms and many, many errors.

 

[po18guy]

Sometimes I forget that there really are people out there with absolutely no idea what words mean and what justice is. Thanks for the reminder.

Before you read any further (though you have not convinced me that you have actually read any of the passages you referenced, you just pasted them from some atheist site and maybe change it around a bit) you should learn about something call, wait for it, context. And while you are learning what that is, here is another concept you need to understand, it is called, justice.

Amen! The allegation is possibly from a person who believes that the source of their own life is within themselves. Another example of the clay pot analyzing the potter.

 

[patrick457]

Pattern # 2 Justification for God murdering, slaughtering, and butchering the innocent is not granted.
He could had let them live and given them to the israelites, or convert them and therefore not having to butchered them.

You try and try hard but you have not come even close to Justify all the atrocities committed by God in the old testament.

Have you run out of rationalizations yet??
Keep posting, I enjoy reading them!

Nah.

Let’s take the Midianites and the Canaanites here first (having devoted a good part to the Amalekites last time), shall we? Why didn’t God just let the Israelites assimilate them or let them be? Why the need to stab-kill-murder them?

Let’s take the case of the Midianites first.

YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, “Exact vengeance on the Midianites for the sons of Israel – after that you will be gathered to your people.”
So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Equip men from among you for the war, that they may go against the Midianites to give the vengeance of YHWH to Midian. A thousand from each tribe of all the tribes of Israel you shall send to the war.”
So there were recruited from the thousands of Israel a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand equipped for war.

-Numbers 31:1-5

The numbers of the army aside, what exactly is the reason for God suddenly deciding to have Israel attack the Midianites?

Then YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, “Harass the Midianites, and strike them; because they harassed you by their deception with which they deceived you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Kozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague that happened as a result of Peor.”

-Numbers 25:16-18

Here, we note that the punishment happened because of the “matter of Peor.”

The story Numbers 25 proceeds from that of the prophet Balaam, in which he ascends the mountain of Pe’or, and makes sacrifices to God from atop it. Having finished his sacrifices, Balaam views the Israelites on the plain below, and although hired to curse them, pronounces a blessing over them, prophesying their blessed nature and destruction of Moab. However, when the narrative focus returns to the point of view of the Israelites, the contrast between Balaam’s voiced opinion of them, and their actual behaviour, is distinctly noticeable.

The Israelites, after spending a short time in the plain of Moab, begin to involve themselves with the Moabite (and later after Midianite, as from what can be inferred in verse 6) women. Consequently, under the influence of Moabite culture, the Israelites begin whoring after the local Moabite gods, and join themselves to Baal Pe’or, a deity associated with the mountain. You know the next: God gets angry at His people worshipping this local god, and Moses hangs the idolaters. Aaron’s grandson Phinehas spears a man (Zimri) who brought a Midianite woman (Kozbi) into the camp in the sight of Moses and apparently had started to have sex with her. Next thing we know, there’s a plague (discussed only briefly) claiming 24,000 lives and that’s pretty much it, until the war with the Midianites.

Let’s take a pause for the moment here. Who are the Midianites and the Moabites exactly?

The Midianites dwelt in the Arabah bordering the Negev occupied by Edom and Northwestern Saudia Arabia up as far as Moab which is modern Jordan. Midian is likewise described as in the vicinity of Moab: the Midianites were beaten by the Edomite king Hadad ben Bedad “in the field of Moab” (Genesis 36:35), and in the account of Balaam it is said that the elders of both Moab and Midian called upon him to curse Israel.

The term “Midianite” is most likely a blanket term describing a league of different clans and families who dwelt in the land spanning from northwest Arabia, southern Transjordan, the Arabah, portions of the Negeb, to possibly northern Sinai. This league dominated the area until approximately the 11th century B.C., when other people gradually supplanted the league.

The Midianites are portrayed in the Bible as nomadic sheep and camel herders, caravaneers, and raiders, ranging over a wide territory to the south and east of Canaan. There is no reason to suppose that this portrayal is not essentially correct, at least in part. However, recent archaeological survey in northwestern Arabia - the heartland of Midian - has indicated that this is not the whole story. There also existed, during the final centuries of the second millennium BCE, sedentary communities that should, in all, probability, be included among the Midianites.

Not all Midianites are portrayed as evil in the Bible. The Midianite tribe called the Kenites (“smiths”) - most likely the ones who helped Moses; you know, the one with Jethro/Reuel - are generally depicted in a positive light and are depicted as accompanying the Israelites in the promised land. The Kenites themselves finally became prominent in post-exilic times (Ne. 3:14).

However, one could say the same for the other tribes within the league. The Egyptians for example lumped the inhabitants of the arid regions of Sinai, the Hijaz, and Transjordan under the single term shasu (literally “moving on foot”; i.e. “nomads”) and depicted them as pastoralists and raiders, much like how the Midianites are shown. Being desert people, some of the Midianite tribes lived a life of trading, raiding, and harassing other folk. The early Israelites had a hard time dealing with these, since they harnessed the camel and used them to make long raids and to escape quickly.

(continued next post)

 

[patrick457]

So why do we see the Moabites and the Midianites being at cahoots with each other here? Moab was closely associated with the Midianites, so much so that the elders of both peoples acted as one group when they went to the town of Pethor to bring back Balaam (Num 22:4-7). The Bible depicts the Midianites as largely a nomadic people. The point is this: for the Moabites to have been on such friendly terms with the Midianites, the former also were probably still largely nomadic, since from time immemorial there has been strife between the nomads in the desert and the settlers in agricultural areas (kinda puts the Israelites in perspective, don’t they?).

As a tribal league, the various tribal leaders could have radically different attitudes toward life, ethics, and Israel. Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro) and other Kenites were allied with Israel, but those farther north were generally hostile and predatory (cf. Heber the Kenite who was allied with Syria in Judges 5, the Midianite/Amalekite raids, and the Midianites in our passage).

The more nomadic ones seemed to have been operating as raiders and slavetraders (such as the ones who sold Joseph in Genesis 37:28, 36), wheras the less nomadic ones were more pastoralist in culture (cf. Jethro). It is the tribes in the north that are often linked with the cruel Amalekites and Canaanites in the Bible.

Now, for the Moabites.

Genesis claims that the Moabites were descended from (the drunken) Lot by incestuous union with his eldest daughter. The core of Moab was the plateau about 3,000 feet (910 m) above the level of the Mediterranean, or 4,300 feet (1,300 m) above the Dead Sea, and rising gradually from north to south.

It was bounded on the west by the Dead Sea and the southern section of the Jordan River; on the east by Ammon and the Arabian desert, from which it was separated by low, rolling hills; and on the south by Edom. The northern boundary varied, but in general it may be said to have been represented by a line drawn some miles above the northern extremity of the Dead Sea.

The Moabites were likely at first pastoral nomads settling in the trans-Jordanian highlands. They may have been among the raiders referred to as Habiru in the Amarna letters (14th century BC). Whether they were among the nations referred to in the Ancient Egyptian language as shutu or shasu is still a matter of some debate among scholars.

In pre-Exodus times Moab was occupied and had settled villages until about 1850 BC. Lot’s descendants may have found a population already there, and must have intermarried with them to emerge at length as the dominant group who gave their name to the whole population.

According to the Bible, the four allied kings from the east - Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, and Tidal, king of Goiim - invaded Moab and overthrew the people of Shaveh-kiryathaim (Genesis 14:5). Either as a result of this campaign, or due to some cause unknown, Transjordan entered on a period of non-sedentary occupation till just before 1300 BC, when several of the Iron Age kingdoms appeared simultaneously. Moab, like the others, was a highly organized kingdom with good agricultural and pastoral pursuits, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications in the shape of small fortresses strategically placed around her boundaries. The Moabites overflowed their main plateau and occupied areas north of the Arnon, destroying the former inhabitants (Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 19-21; cf. Genesis 14:5). These lands were shared with the closely related Ammonites.

Eventually, they themselves were afterwards driven south by warlike Amorite tribes, who had crossed the river Jordan. These Amorites, described in the Bible as being ruled by Sihon, confined the Moabites to the country south of the river Arnon, which formed their northern boundary. Thus, by the time that the Israelites were going to Canaan, it would seem that Moab’s power is in the low.

Here we get back in time a bit. During the Third Dynasty of Ur in Sumeria (ca. 21st-20th centuries BC), immigrating Amorites had become such a force that kings such as Shu-Sin were even obliged to construct a 170 mile wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates just to hold them off. These Amorites appear as nomadic clans ruled by fierce tribal chiefs, who forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds. Some of the Akkadian literature of this era speaks disparagingly of the Amorites, and implies that the neo-Sumerians viewed their nomadic way of life with disgust and contempt. When the dynasty itself slowly collapsed, the component regions began to reassert their former independence, and places where Amorites resided were no exception.

Elsewhere, armies of Elam were attacking and weakening the empire, making it vulnerable. Some Amorites aggressively took advantage of the failing empire to seize power for themselves. There was not an Amorite invasion as such, but Amorites did ascend to power in many locations, especially during the reign of the last king of the Ur-III Dynasty, Ibbi-Sin. Leaders with Amorite names assumed power in various places, including Isin, Larsa, and Babylon. The Elamites finally sacked Ur in ca. 2004 BC. Some time later, the most powerful ruler in Mesopotamia (immediately preceding the rise of Hammurabi of Babylon) was Shamshi-Adad I, another Amorite.

The era of the Amorite kingdoms, ca. 2000–1600 BC, is sometimes known as the “Amorite period” in Mesopotamian history. The principal Amorite dynasties arose in Mari, Yamkhad, Qatna, Assur (under Shamshi-Adad I), Isin, Larsa, and Babylon. This era ended with the Hittite sack of Babylon (c. 1595 BC) which brought new ethnic groups—particularly Kassites and Hurrians—to the forefront in Mesopotamia. From the 15th century BC onward, the term Amurru is usually applied to the region extending north of Canaan as far as Kadesh on the Orontes.

(continued)

 

[patrick457]

So, where do we fit Israel in all this?

Israel is, by this time, camping on “the plains of Moab”, across from Jericho. They were preparing to cross the river Jordan, to begin taking possession of the Land.

Israel is forbidden by God to attack Moab, or try to take their land (cf. Deuteronomy 2:9), and they had already passed by Moab’s territory, but Moab’s chief—Balak—was nonetheless afraid of these “nomads”, and attempted to mount an (unprovoked) campaign against them.

Having been refused right of passage on the King’s Highway (a trade route extending from Egypt to Syria), Israel had traveled north from the Sinai peninsula through the wilderness, just to the east of the various Transjordanian nations of Edom, Moab, and Heshbon. The conflict with Sihon created a passageway from the Syrian desert over to the river Jordan. This pathway would have been some 30 miles north of the Arnon river, the then northernmost border of Moab.

Since the Israelites already defeated the part of the Amorite ‘kingdom’ ruled by Sihon (the other was ruled by Og, who himself was later defeated), took their fortifications and killed the king and “all his people” (so say Numbers 21:21-30), Balak was smart enough not to launch a ‘normal’ military attack on Israel (camping down in the plain, getting last minute instructions/laws from God, and generally resting up for the march across Jordan into Palestine), but decided to attempt to resort to sorcery. He consulted with his military advisors/superiors (Midianites) and they persuaded the diviner Balaam to place a ‘curse’ on Israel.

Balak takes Balaam up to several “high places” overlooking where Israel is camped (implying that Balak is substantially north of his territory, and is now in Amorite territory), and assists Balaam in trying to curse Israel with powers from the local gods of each mountain. Balaam is not allowed by God to place a curse on Israel, but instead pronounces a blessing on them, all the while cursing Moab. Balak, disappointed that he cannot get God to help him defeat Israel and ‘drive them far out of the land’, gets angry at this (Numbers 22:1-21; 24:10-11). Balak and Balaam then simply go to their respective homes… for the moment. It seems that Israel is safe from an unprovoked attack by Moab and Midian, and that they can prepare for crossing the Jordan ‘in peace’. They are dwelling ‘opposite’ Moab (22.5) and so do not have any interchanges with the Moabites/Midianites at that time.

They thought they could cross the land without any conflict, but danger still follows their tail.

Numbers 25 opens with the Israelites camping at Shittim, a small village about 5 miles from the Jordan, which had been recently captured by Israel from Sihon. Although Israel had destroyed all the ‘towns’ (fortified cities), outlying villages and hamlets may have been left without damage, and would have therefore presented temporary living quarters. There could have also been some Amorites and Midianites there (we’ll see later that they were occupying some of these towns).

Then, all of sudden, the “daughters of Moab” start showing up in Shittim - in large numbers - probably having traveled in groups from the kingdom of Moab thirty miles south of there. Travel in this part of the country, and at this time essentially was done by caravan, by necessity a large one; having 100 to 200 donkeys bearing loads was not uncommon, and under armed guards (with government funding) - a necessity since you need protection against both the elements and the wandering nomadic tribes that might loot your possessions and murder you, no matter how innocent you are.

If we run together the sequence of the events, they would show up like:

1.) The Israelites camp in or near the village of Shittim.
2.) The Moabite women, perhaps also accompanied by their Midianite allies, show up. Due to the distance of the present kingdom of Moab with the present location of the Israelites (about thirty miles or so), they most likely went by caravan, with government-funded guards.
3.) We are told that the Israelite men (not all, obviously) have sex with the women. Now the Hebrew verb here indicates extreme lustful abandon - one normally used to describe the behavior of a loose woman, a harlot. Here the Israelite men “bewhore” themselves with foreign, pagan women.
4.) Now while these are still rather “innocent” enough, later the same women would invite the Israelite men to their religious sacrifices (where meat and wine would have been served - the Israelites had not had very much meat during the 40 years in the wilderness). These would have likely been held at the religious shrines at or around the mount of Peor (one of the sites where Balak took Balaam), especially the shrine of the local ba’al, Baal Peor. The men, we are told, accepted the offer.
5.) Then the Israelite men would have ‘bowed down’ to their pagan gods, probably as part of the ceremony, and engaged in ‘sacred sex’ (a standard part of Near Eastern fertility ceremonies).

We are then told that Israel “yoked himself” to Baal Peor. “Yoking” is likely an ancient cultic term, but we don’t have much indication of its meaning from history. It could mean something as formal as “joining in a covenant” (in violation of the exclusive Mosaic one they were already in!), or something as vivid as “(sexual) union” with Baal Peor, through ritual intercourse (a standard fertility motif). Almost any meaning of this word, since it is undoubtedly “worse than” just “bowing down”, would be enough to seriously jeopardize Israel’s protection by God.

(continued)

 

[patrick457]

Note that Near Eastern thinking is very much based on the idea of honor and shame, like the Japanese. The Israelites, by “yoking” themselves to Baal Peor and forgetting the covenant, would have caused a serious breach to YHWH’s personal honor - they just shamed Him by going off with another god and breaking the covenant they made! ‘Shaming’ someone (i.e. defiling their honor) in such a culture is taken very seriously, so it would be natural for the culprit to deserve the heaviest punishment: death.

You can also see this in how the Law is supposed to treat an adulterer: you are supposed to stone him/her to death, because he/she had just spit on the honor of both his/her partner and family - as well as themselves - by committing adultery! The same happens here: the leaders of the Israelites get the punishment of death for shaming God by breaching the covenant-bargain and defiling both His honor and the honor of His bride Israel.

Once getting an understanding as to how covenants and the idea of honor and shame are treated seriously in ancient culture, you can see why God would react angrily to this. His is a perfectly natural reaction.

Now we go forward.

The story goes on to tell about an Israelite man named Zimri, a tribal leader (from the tribe of Simeon), who brought to his family a Midianite woman, Kozbi daughter of Zur (chief of a
Midianite tribe) in public - right before the eyes of Moses and the people! This prompts Phinehas grandson of Aaron to follow them with a spear to the tent and kill both the man and the woman.

Here we have a case of flagrant anti-covenant behavior, signifying the abandonment of the God who had brought them this far. As all the Israelites were gathered in front of the tabernacle confessing their sin (the text describes them as “weeping at the entrance of the Tent”), this man just comes in and brings the Midianite woman with him. This action could have been interpreted as an encouragement to participate in this forbidden ritual (after all, Zimri occupies a high position as a tribal leader) - even though the people were supposed to be repenting for their previous idolatry.

The ‘chamber’ into which they enter appears to be in the sacred enclosure and therefore suggests ritual intercourse. Though the ritual may have been fertility-oriented, the Israelites are not engaging in agriculture, so it is difficult to imagine what connection that might have here.

Where did this Midianite woman come from? The Moabites would have traveled north from their kingdom, but the Midianite women - and presumably the leadership, since this woman is called the daughter of a prince/chieftain - would have also have had to have moved into the area. For nomads, this is not much of a problem, and indeed, they could even have facilitated the travel of the Moabite women from the south. In Numbers 31:10, 11 they are said to have been in camps and in towns (which they were only occupying at the time). This would have situated them in either: the late Sihon’s old territory, toward Moab; or Sihon’s old territory toward the east, now vacated by Israel. If the latter, they were ostensibly attempting to engage Israel somehow.

Now, afterwards, we see a plague ravage the Israelites, killing 24,000 men. Judging from the large numbers of Israelite males killed from this plague, as well as those who were executed in verse 4, this would have required several thousand foreign women to have precipitated and effected such a large scale apostasy, in such a short period of time. And these women would have had to have traveled deliberately to do just this.

And it is here at this point that the treachery of the Midianites becomes visible in the narrative: this was deliberate strategy on the part of the Moabite-Midianite leadership to use sex as a weapon, and have Israel abandon the protection and life-source of their God.

Now we see the Midianites come to the fore.

Then YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, “Harass the Midianites and strike them; because they harassed you by their deception with which they deceived you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Kozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague that happened as a result of Peor.”

-Numbers 25:16-18

 

[patrick457]

Now, let’s go back to the continuation of chapter 31. We see some of the characters from chapter 25 make a reappearance, such as Phinehas or Balaam:

6: Then Moses sent them to the war, one thousand from every tribe. He sent with them to the war Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, with the holy articles and the signal trumpets in his hand.
7: And they fought against the Midianites, as the YHWH commanded Moses, and they killed all the males.
8: They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain – Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba – five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9: The sons of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their children, and all their beasts, and all their livestock, and all their goods they plundered.
10: They burned with fire all the towns where they dwelt and all their encampments.
11: And they took all the spoil and all the spoils - of man and beast.
12: They brought the captives and the spoils and the plunder to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the community of the sons of Israel, to the camp on the steppes of Moab, along the Jordan across from Jericho.
13: And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community, went to meet them outside the camp.
14: But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, who had come from the host of war.
15: And Moses said to them. “Have you kept all the women alive?
16: Look, these caused the sons of Israel through the counsel of Balaam to act unfaithfully against YHWH in the matter of Peor – so the plague was among the community of YHWH!
17: Now therefore, kill every male among the children, and every woman who has known a man by lying with him.
18: But all the young women who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Note that it is most likely that when the text here describes “all the males” it simply meant “all the males who were in the battle”. The various Midianite tribes and cities dotted the whole region, but that does not mean Israel went, hunted down, and killed every single one of them (after all, later passages make it clear that there were still Midianites in the surrounding areas after this battle). Same goes for the women and children.

The numbers of the Israelites would imply that the Midianite force would have been estimated in the 8,000-15,000 person range. This, of course, means that we are not dealing with all of the Midianites, but only just this small tribal sub-group in this area (i.e., its not a genocide thing).

Next, we see the Israelites kill five Midianite ‘kings’ (tribal cheftains most likely), and Balaam. What is Balaam doing in this part of the narrative? Why is he killed also? And what’s all this about him causing the Israelites to be perverted? This smells fishy, it does.

It appears that the Israelite men began to have sexual relations with the Moabite and Midianite women (Num 25:1,6). How such liaisons began we can only guess, but they seem to be connected with the bad advice given to the Moabites by Balaam. Prior to this event, Balak of Moab had hired Balaam to curse the people of Israel; because of God’s influence, however, Balaam had only been able to bless them. Apparently still bent on helping the Moabite king however, Balaam had stayed on in the land of Moab and Midian.

Verse 16 tells us that the Midianite women were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice. (Apparently the Midianites were in Moab giving military advice to the Moabites at this time).

We should note that the temptation/seduction was purely sexual in nature at first - there was no religious motivation to seek Baal Peor out. It is clear that, after sexual relationships had led to participation in the pagan sacrificial feasts, the next step was a formal association with a particular god. It’s a gradual step.

In other words, Israel had no religious interest in a god with agricultural/vegetation overtones - the ‘attraction’ was physical: first sex, then food (expensive meat/wine). Only Balaam would have had the theological ‘sophistication’ to know that this would separate Israel from God, and so make Israel vulnerable to ‘normal’ military forces.

The following scenario may have occurred between the lines of chapters 24-25:

• Balaam cannot help Moab in military ‘curses’, but on his way home he realizes that the God of Israel can inflict much more damage to them than could Moab.
• He then puts forward his plan to the Midianite princes on how to get Israel to abandon their God. The Midianite princes agree to let Balaam appeal to the Midianites (especially the women) to enlist their aid in using sex as a weapon against Israel.

Then, one of the following may have happened:

1. • Either the women agreed with Balaam’s plan, and then talked their husbands into letting them commit wholesale, pre-meditated, and government-facilitated adultery (for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment) [the wording of the text suggests that THIS is the most probable historical reconstruction].
   • Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then talked or cajoled their wives into committing the above (again, for the sake of Balak’s paranoia, and Midianite anti-Israel sentiment).
   • Or the men agreed with Balaam’s plan and then forced their wives (once more, for the sake of Balak and the anti-Israel sentiment).
   • Or the chiefs/elite of the local Midianite tribes forced both their men and women to agree (yet again, for the sake of Balak’s paranoia and all that).
   (to be continued, again)

 

[patrick457]

And:

1. 
   *]Fathers and mothers may have talked their unmarried daughters (or forced them); yes, all for the sake of Balak’s paranoia and the wish to see this annoying nation called ‘Israel’ disappear from their front door.
   *]The Midianite power forced or talked the Moabite women to ‘lead the charge’ (but they disappear in the narrative after the first mention).
   *]The tribal higher-ups plan, fund, and orchestrate the caravans of Moabite women, and Midianite migration to the area where Israel is camping.
   
   To think that a culture/nation would deliberately do this marriage-destructive, family-destructive, and de-humanizing atrocity on the scale of 5,000-15,000 wives/families is just, staggering. As destructive as regular ‘cultic prostitution’ would have been to family life in Canaanite areas, this action by the local Midianite tribes makes that look innocent and tame by comparison. Not content with destroying their own families (and teaching/showing the kids that ‘national goals’ are more important than loyalty/intimacy in marriage), they use this to destroy another nation’s families and marriages. So, who’s the mean guy now?
   
   Finally, the word used for “deception” in 25:18 above is nakal - the essence of which is to engage in deception, guile, craft through a deliberate plan/act. There was nothing ‘noble’ or ‘innocent’ or even ‘neutral’ about this plan - however it was actually implemented - it was deliberate, hostile, treacherous deception and destruction.
   
   The number of women who would have been executed for their personal involvement in the deceptive and malicious treachery might be estimated from the number of girls spared. If the 32,000 girls were spared, we might estimate the number of boys at around 20,000 (as infant mortality for males is 30% higher than for females back then), and with a 3-4 kids/family ratio, we get around 12,000 sets of parents. This 12,000 number accords well with the troop count and estimates of the number of women who approached the Israelites in the deception of Baal Peor. This also confronts us with the fact that the number of adult Israelites who died in the plague of judgment - 24,000 men - roughly matches the number of adult Midianite deaths. Under this scenario. Israel did not get off from this horror without casualties - they were the subject of God’s judgment first.
   
   The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually a small number. According to the distribution of them, the Israelite troops (numbering 12,000) received 16,000 (half of the total), making an average of between 1 and 2 per household, depending on the soliders-per-household ratio. The other half - 16,000 young women - was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would get one. This would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this time are still nomadic peoples without any material base from which to live. More than one commentator has noted that this seems to be a surprise act of mercy.
   
   Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had the adequate economic means, they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from hostile-but-conquered foreign cities), but at this stage this was quite an impossibility. They had no need for captured “slaves”, nor means to support them at this time. The only way they could absorb the 32,000 girls was that 24,000 in Israel had died as a result of the treachery at Peor earlier. This created some ‘capacity’ for absorbing innocents into Israel for the moment.
   
   The remaining people were the non-combat age boys. If we see the text here, the number of these boys present at this scene would have been very minimal. According to Numbers31:7, they had already killed “every male (zakar - not the normal word for an adult man, but a term for ‘male’ in general)”. This would mean that the reference in verse 17 to kill “kal zakar (‘every male’) among the children” would likely be a reference to any boys who had somehow ‘hidden’ or been unnoticed among the group of captive children. Given the general statement of verse 9, this would imply that this would have likely been a very small number of boys left.

 

[patrick457]

We get to the question: why were the boys not spared? They never really took part in the Peor incident, after all.

• No Ancient Near Eastern land-based and/or blood-succession-based civilization had means for assimilating foreign males into them, except as severely constrained/debilitated slaves (in some of these cultures, for example, the captors would blind their slaves first, then set them to work on a number of limited jobs, such as carrying water).
• All Ancient Near Eastern civilizations recognized the military threat/risk that male slaves (even children) of foreign stock represented. Even the case in which David ‘served’ the Philistines, the Philistine leaders were sensitive to the issue - that David might turn on them in the heat of battle (1 Samuel 29). Again if I might point out, like the Japanese, the Near East had a group-oriented culture: in this POV, the world is divided between “us” (the in-group) and “not us” (the out-group).

Outsiders, those who are not part of the in-group, are perceived as “barbarians” and viewed with suspicion because they don’t conform to cultural mandates and because no loyalty is owed to them. People who don’t function by the norms of the in-group are viewed as outsiders who lack legitimate status. Because foreign captives are not “one of us”, no total trust can be given to them.

Who knows? That kid may profess his loyalty to you now, but there is a possibility that later he will destroy the in-group from within. He might back-stab you when you’re not looking - perhaps literally. This is one reason why some cultures blinded their captured slaves - they crippled the captives so that they could never be able to rebel against their masters.

• There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world. Only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’, and the land in which this event occurred was mostly depopulated. Without anyone to take them, the surviving children would most likely die in the wilderness.
• There would be no practical way to transport these boys to their other kin down south, and there was no absolute guarantee that they would take them in anyway. Even the Kenites, generally loyal to Israel, were divided in policy, as Heber the Kenite’s alliance with Syria against Israel in Judges indicates. Pastoral nomads conducting raids both against one another and against sedentists is well attested in the near eastern historical record. Who’s to say that the other Midianite tribes would just welcome these survivors with open arms?
• As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced - by the Midianite atrocity - into the difficult situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the ancient world, was killing them very quickly. As I have mentioned in a previous post, the ancients preferred a quick death to a life of slow torment. The Israelites, having no other alternatives before their hands (they could not take them, either as slaves or as part of the in-group, nor could they just return them to the other tribes, nor just leave them to die out there), resort to the final “merciful” option they have available: sparing the children from a hard life by a quick death.

Now, what happened to the girls given to the Israelites? How would they know if they were actually virgins?

First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. The ‘test for virginity’ back then was very simple - all you need to use is your eyes. Unlike in our modern day world, where you have to sort out the truth from lie and use complicated contraptions to ascertain whether a girl is actually a virgin or not.

The test went like:

• Was the female pre-pubescent?
• Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture?

If your answer to both the questions are “yes”, then congratulations! You have just correctly identified a virgin.

Because virginity was important generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in these cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (say, the robe of Tamar in 2 Samuel 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu* tilaka*); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status, such as temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes, were also indicated by special markings or adornments, such as jewelry or dress 'see Proverbs 7.10; Hosea 2.4-5).

For example, the erotic art of the Ancient Near East (such as Mesopotamian or Syrian) shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes. Sacred prostitutes are frequently depicted naked, with loose hair - none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women. These associations of cultic prostitutes were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women. Meanwhile, some of these patterns varied by culture/age. In Babylonia, for instance, married women did not wear veils but rather a sort of special headgear - in contrast to Assyria, where legal texts suggest that married women were veiled.

 

[patrick457]

Now, some critics suggest that the women were kept as sex slaves, reading too much into Moses’ words to “keep [the girls] alive for yourselves”.

Back then, most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating (somewhere 12-14 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the Old Testament, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.

And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as manual slaves at all! Children raised in Israelite households were put to work around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8, but 5 is still a bit young (this was the days before PlayStation or Nintendo!). Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. Also note that ‘slavery’ in the Old Testament generally means something quite different from the New World plantation-style ‘slavery’ we are all familiar with.

And, unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very into using slaves/captives for sex, even though scholars earlier taught this (apparently this claim was abandoned since there is little evidence for it). In Sumerian culture for example, female slaves outnumbered male - these girls were used primarily for spinning and weaving. Note also that while fidelity and exclusivity demands on the wife did not apply to the husband in other Near Eastern cultures - they were expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes, we have little to no evidence for this in Israelite culture. The Hebrews were rather unique in this regard.

Finally, even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated.

Looking again at Numbers 31, we note that the items that were exempted from utter destruction were some metal objects and the young girls. These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine. Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp (Numbers 31:19-20):

And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. Purify every garment, everything made of leather, everything woven of goats’ hair , and everything made of wood.

This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes - and the prevention of death by plague - as required by the law of kherem (consecration by total annihilation) could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.

For the moment, that’s it for the Midianites and the Heresy of Peor and the massacre.

 

[SanctusEnigma40]

You seem to think that by copy and pasting lots of information you will be able to justify Gods atrocities in the Old testament.

Is this the best you can do at rationalizing??

Is that it??

God is still not justify in murdering the innocents in the Old testaments because of the sins of the fathers.

Keep copying and pasting but that fact still remains: God is still not Justify in committing all the atrocities he did!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You mean that you’ll accept God’s gift of creating you, but expect that once He has created you, He has no more ‘power’ over you unless He gives you good things.

IOW, you’re permitting the Being who created you and indeed everything in the universe to have LESS ‘authority’ over His creation than you have. Insisting that He conform to your finite and limited judgment lest He be condemned as mean and above all, ‘unjustified’. In YOUR eyes. In the eyes of a creature who could not even exist without that Creator. .and you’re putting yourself in judgment over Him? I don’t think that’s very. . .wise.

 

[patrick457]

You seem to think that by copy and pasting lots of information you will be able to justify Gods atrocities in the Old testament.

Is this the best you can do at rationalizing??

Is that it??

God is still not justify in murdering the innocents in the Old testaments because of the sins of the fathers.

Keep copying and pasting but that fact still remains: God is still not Justify in committing all the atrocities he did!

Heh. I’ll admit that the above was 90% copypasta (albeit reworded slightly in my own words). Nothing wrong with that after all - the ancients copied a lot of information from other people; some directors often copy other directors in films. In this world, copying is a natural process. But worry not, I have a test next week - really need to study, no? - and PERHAPS would not be able to do something of the sort for a few days.

Before I do my homework from other people all over again (I’m astonied that I am now apparently considered a “rationalist”…), your argument is, as pointed out, apparently out of outrage.

Before we get to the Bible and walk in circles once more, let’s do a simple questionnaire (based on all the above, yeah, but in my own words).

1.) How do you know your moral intuition at this point is accurate?
2.) Do you believe that an ‘unjust’ act is always ‘unjust’ without exception, regardless of competing ethical demands?
3.) If there are exceptions, show how those exceptions do not hold in this case, or how there could not be any exception which would be valid in this case.

I can’t help wonder. Why not do a thorough analysis proving why God is a cruel baby-killer instead of briefly complaining about how the punishment is undeserved and is unjustified, without exceptions? Scour all the Old Testament and the New and check all the historical background and all that, and give us a definite reason WHY (not just HOW). Make sure that your apologia is applicable to the Ancient Near Eastern world, culture, and values. And, for the sake of playing fair (lest there be complaints), I won’t forbid copy-pasting.

Since you are the one claiming that “God is mean” here, give us something convincing. Give us something solid on why God is mean.

 

[SanctusEnigma40]

Dear Patrick,

You see, now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for your honesty. I do not think either that there is nothing wrong with copying and pasting either, as long as you are familiar with what you are pasting and believe it. I have enjoyed reading your post , but they still (in my opinion fail).

I am dealing with a similar situation in another forum (here in catholic answers) and I think I might now be getting some good and reasonable answers for my question by someone posting as “Angels Unaware”. She really seams to have a good grasp of what my problem is and I want to keep corresponding with her to really get what she is saying.

The post is called: God is not all Good.

Here is the Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=316842&page=5

Now, Patrick, you might think I am trying to be sleek when I tell you, but it is the truth:
I am not posting Here to prof to any of you that God is Mean. Rather I wanted someone to point out a way to see (or interpret this verses) in a way that make sense to me.

I have even welcome people whe have said, that this verses need to be interpreted allegorically, or symbolically.

I just demanded that they then go ahead and give the symbolical (or allegorical) interpretation to see if it makes sense to me.

You are trying to shift the burden of the proof to me, but I am not the One claiming that God is: Love, Long Suffering, Patient, Slow to Anger, Loving Father that corrects and punish, but in a loving way, Just, Mercifull (His Mercy endures forever), and so on and so forth.

If God was indeed like this, then not only I could believe in Him, but I will find myslet able to worship him that same way I used to (which I will desperately will love to).

The problem is that I find myself unable to go back to the Catholic Church because I have read Atheist Moral Arguemts against God I find them formidable.

Even if God was to appear to me in person I will find myself unable to worship Him because i have Moral issues against Him that prevent me from doing so.

The arguments are very simple but effective. It goes like this: Read the Old testament and tell me if the God described there matches what Christian describe when they talk about God.
I accepted the challenge and I saw things the way this atheist see this for the first time.

God no longer seamed All Good, Loving, Long Suffering, Patient, Mercifull, Kind, Like a Loving Father, With a good disposition towards man, and on and on.

After careful consideration of many passages in the old testament (Which I quote at the beginning of this forum) I find God to be all the opposite of this good qualities.
I find God to be:
Ill Tempered, With a bad disposition towards his enemies and his own people too, Short Fused, Angry all the time, Mean, Beligerent, Vindictive, Cruel, Merciless, Quick to Anger, Bloodthirsty, and on and on and on.

Now, maybe there is a way to correctly view this verses so that they make sense and can be harmonize with a view of God that is basically Good.

Since I have had so many things to critisize from the Protestant denomination I have been involved for many years (Baptist, charismatic Evangelical, Pentecostal, and a few others) I am really wanting to go back to the Catholic church, since the whole thing about “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide” Controversy is not haveing an appropiate answer, but within the catholic church.

“Faith alone”, and “Scripture alone” have only brought forth so much confusion and endless christian denominations, that the whole thing is a joke. It is like: Welcome to the jungle of Christian confusion.

Not so with the Catholic Church. and since I was baptized and comfirmed in the Catholic faith many years ago, I really want to come back.

My problem is that I find myself unable to worship God, even if he exist, because this verses clearly portray God in a very bad and evil way.

I have tried to speak with several priest close to where i live in Florida, but to not avail (They are too busy).

So I was kind of Hoping that by posting my question in Here I will get the answers that I am looking for.

All I have got so far is: Harsh answers, Weak and lame arguments, Lots of criticisms, and just plain bunk.

Now, I will say this again: This verses when read plainly, make god seam Evil and Cruel. All I am asking is for you guys to make them make sense so that they harmonize with a Good God conception. Make all this verses make sense! Please!

I will quote something that Angels unaware said in her post:
Angels Unaware:

This is a pathetically inadequate argument. It fails completely. Why do you insist on defending something that cannot be defended? Is your faith that weak? This idea that God the Person in the Father ordered out of his mouth the murder of babies is as indefensible as arguing that 2+2=3.

First, the argument that it is better to die and be with God than to live is entirely contrary to the weight of all Scripture. Death is an enemy in the Bible.

Second, your argument would be that God actually decided that rather than to convert the innocent children being slaughtered, it was better that they die, and die brutally. And yet, since He is God, He could have chosen that they not be born, or that they would be adopted by the Israelites, so that His justice would be perfect, or any infinite number of solutions.

 

[SanctusEnigma40]

A God who decided to brutally murder children for the sake of rewarding his chosen people with land would not be a God worthy of worship. When this was defended to me by a Fundamentalist Protestant once, he said those children were evil and deserved to die.

The only way to resolve the problem is to see beyond a literal interpretation, and to leave the possibility open that this is beyond our ability to understand given the information available.

Now I trully believe she is up to something here.

and i want to keep pursuing this avenue, because she seams to have a good grasp of the problem here.

She is not offering another cookie cutter defense that is trying to defend the indefensible. She is not giving me the same old bunk that: Well… yes, God kill the babies and the innocent, but they had it coming because Their parent were evil, and what God did was merciful?

Excuse me? Merciful? Slaughering and Butchering the babies makes god Merciful and Good?
Sure he is giving them a painful death passing them through the sword and the spear, and commanded his own people of israel to not have pity or mercy and kill the mothers with their suckling babies and God is still Good? and merciful?

Excuse me, but No God that is worthy of my worship is going to get away with this.

There must be a way to look at this verses that can make sense of them.

IF you insist that my argument from “Outrage” is weak, I can tell you honestly that is far more stronger that what you have provided so far as an explanation.

Even if you can prove to me that the parents of the babies where freaking evil and Hell bent, that does not excuse what God for butchering the babies.

He could have made the mothers of this people all barren, or command the children of Israel to spare the children and babies, and to adopt them.

God could have do many other things at his disposal, why because He is God remember?
There is nothing impossible or difficult for God. He could have make this babies Miraculously disappear and appear safe somewhere else to be care by other people or by his own people.

God Could have sent a powerful prophet, to preach with miracles and diverse signs and wonders so that this sinful people will repent in ashes, and this way this whole butchering and mayhem will not have to happen.

Again there are many options to Jehovah, since we are talking that He is God, and anything is at his disposal, and not difficult or (name removed by moderator)osible in any way.

So again, Patrick, all your arguments so far fail to take this in consideration, and you pretend that by the force of your argument i should yield.

But I am here to tell you that all your arguemts, and the arguments of others that have post here so far are not cutting it.

They are just not making sense, and are failing miserably.

Don’t get upset with me. The arguments brought in so far are weak. I find myself unable to buy them.

I am not trying to give you (or nobody else) a hard time.

Maybe “Angels Unaware” is up to something here and I want to explore the posibility that the way she see this verses is the correct way to interpret them to make sense out of this mess.

Please, do not let personal pride to get in the middle of this discussion.

I really comend you for trying your best and I trully appreciate from the bottom of my heart that you are honestly trying to get a good answer for this problem.

Let me explore this other posibility and be patient with me.

I will still be happy to keep hearing from you and what you can bring to the table in this discussion. I am just so far unable to accept totally your arguments.

Hope to hear from you soon, and best regards,

SanctusEnigma40

 

[patrick457]

SanctusEnigma40,
No, I’m not upset. I too would like to sincerely apologize if I’ve acted a bit too hard on you. No hard feelings, if you will. (IMHO I think it would be better if you listen to other more knowledgeable people on these forums - Angels Unaware is one - instead of having to put up with lowly, uneducated me…)

One minor thing I’d like point out though. In a post, you said:

God Could have sent a powerful prophet, to preach with miracles and diverse signs and wonders so that this sinful people will repent in ashes, and this way this whole butchering and mayhem will not have to happen.

Actually, God had already sent signs to the Canaanite tribes, albeit not too prominently-labeled ones, you might say. The majority of times that God gives a sign in the Bible it usually takes form of something inconspicuous and simple. Only rarely would He do a big, epic (in a Cecil D. DeMille way of speaking) sign. Just think of 1 Kings 19:11-12:

He said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before YHWH.” And look, YHWH was passing by! And a great and strong wind was tearing off the mountains and shattering the crags before YHWH, but YHWH was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but YHWH was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake, a fire, but YHWH not in the fire; and after the fire, a calm, soft voice.

As for these ‘signs’:

By the time the Israelites got to Canaan the news at what happened in Egypt and the Sea already travelled there and was apparently widespread (Rahab has already heard of it in Joshua 2:9-13). They had 40 or so whole years to prepare and go off someplace else since the land would be given as a present to the sons of Israel! Joshua 2:11 and 5:1 illustrates this perfectly; after hearing about how the Israelites were helped by their God, some of these people apparently lost their courage to try to face the Israelites (good for them IMHO). The more foolish ones…

And, even before the Israelites got there the nations are already surrounded by the other offspring of Abraham (Ishmaelites), Lot (Moabites and Ammonites) and Isaac (Edomites) - most likely some of these have exposed these people to a ‘primitive’ knowledge of El that Abraham followed. Abraham himself forged close relationships with some of these cultures.

Also, even before the Israelites appeared on the scene and when Abraham was still alive, these people had the priest-king Melchizedek in their midst. And the destruction of the Cities of the Plain - was that insufficient a sign for the Canaanites back then?

Fortunately, the signs have not gone totally unheeded - some ANE cultures seem to have heeded the ‘still small voice’ and thus became more “sophisticated” than the more ruthless and cruel ones in Canaan.

That’s it for today (I just repeated myself, I know). If that is still unconvincing, then I’m very sorry to having taken up so much bandwidth.