Is God Above His own Law?

[KingJ]

And that's what I've been saying all along...your interpretive choices have forced you into a position where you have to defend and justify genocide. Obviously you're ok with that, so I'll just leave it there.

1. Why don't you study the bible properly? = You make so many bad / dumb assumptions.
2. Why don't you defend scripture like you do your false science? = Science textbooks > bible....
3. Why are you a Christian if you believe God of the OT is evil? = Mad Christian or not a Christian....

Should evil be punished or should it just run amok? Man punishes evil why not God? Does the potter have right over the clay? Should God dismiss all justice in favor for mercy? If God does can He still be just?

Wait a minute perhaps you could do a better job than God, perhaps you have a greater moral than God? He who gave you the ability to make moral decisions must bow to you in your righteous, objective judgments?

Amen. I just want to add that if we are honest and have IQ >10 we can grasp that God is good. We don't need to even trust.

I just laugh when people mock God for taking out the Jewish enemies. How evil must you be to oppose a race that aspires to be so righteous. Any good leader would open his doors to them, welcome them in and offer them help. Especially when they see God in the prophets / supporting them.

 

[River Jordan]

Justaname and KJ, you both should go back and read through this thread, because you're addressing an argument (God is evil) that I've never made.

 

[justaname]

Justaname and KJ, you both should go back and read through this thread, because you're addressing an argument (God is evil) that I've never made.

I never said you made that argument. I posed questions...

Perhaps I could slow the rapid fire of questions down a bit...

Just what is your interpretation of the command by God to the Jews regarding the peoples in the land they were to occupy and how does this interpretation place you somewhere different than any other bible interpreter?

 

[River Jordan]

Just what is your interpretation of the command by God to the Jews regarding the peoples in the land they were to occupy and how does this interpretation place you somewhere different than any other bible interpreter?

To me they read as being in the genre of "battlefield stories", which are typified by exaggeration and/or self-glorification in many cultures. For example, given the choice between believing that the Israelite army really was larger than the current US army, or believing that the writers exaggerated their numbers a fair bit (just like a lot of other writers from that time), I choose the latter. The archaeological evidence very strongly supports my conclusion as well. Basically, had an army that large been in existence at that time, not only would it have greatly exceeded every other army in the world (and by quite a lot), there would be some very strong and clear evidence for it. As it stands, the evidence actually indicates that the Jewish people arose among and co-existed with the Canaanites rather than wiped them out in a series of genocides.

And unlike the fundamentalists, I do not take a "you have to believe every bit of the Bible is 100% true or you have to throw it out entirely" approach.

 

[justaname]

To me they read as being in the genre of "battlefield stories", which are typified by exaggeration and/or self-glorification in many cultures. For example, given the choice between believing that the Israelite army really was larger than the current US army, or believing that the writers exaggerated their numbers a fair bit (just like a lot of other writers from that time), I choose the latter. The archaeological evidence very strongly supports my conclusion as well. Basically, had an army that large been in existence at that time, not only would it have greatly exceeded every other army in the world (and by quite a lot), there would be some very strong and clear evidence for it. As it stands, the evidence actually indicates that the Jewish people arose among and co-existed with the Canaanites rather than wiped them out in a series of genocides.

And unlike the fundamentalists, I do not take a "you have to believe every bit of the Bible is 100% true or you have to throw it out entirely" approach.

I appreciate your response yet your have spoken nothing about God and His command.
The biblical account says the Hebrews did not "wipe them out" completely...

 

[River Jordan]

I appreciate your response yet your have spoken nothing about God and His command.

Which command are you talking about?

The biblical account says the Hebrews did not "wipe them out" completely...

Several of the stories in the OT very clearly state that the Israelites killed everyone, men, women, children. Deuteronomy 2 & 3, as well as Joshua 6 & 10.

 

[Wormwood]

And that's what I've been saying all along...your interpretive choices have forced you into a position where you have to defend and justify genocide. Obviously you're ok with that, so I'll just leave it there.

I don't see it as an "interpretive choice." This is not a matter of interpretation but a matter of inspiration. I believe the Bible is inspired by God. I see no other way to "interpret" the Old Testament battle narratives.

 

[justaname]

Which command are you talking about?


Several of the stories in the OT very clearly state that the Israelites killed everyone, men, women, children. Deuteronomy 2 & 3, as well as Joshua 6 & 10.

Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God. (Deut. 20.16-18)

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)

Here are two commands I am speaking of.

I really don't want to discuss the second remark...yet I will say the Bible records the Jews did not exactly obey God's command nor completely drive out the Canaanites. (Joshua 9; Joshua 17:12-13)

 

[KingJ]

To me they read as being in the genre of "battlefield stories", which are typified by exaggeration and/or self-glorification in many cultures. For example, given the choice between believing that the Israelite army really was larger than the current US army, or believing that the writers exaggerated their numbers a fair bit (just like a lot of other writers from that time), I choose the latter. The archaeological evidence very strongly supports my conclusion as well. Basically, had an army that large been in existence at that time, not only would it have greatly exceeded every other army in the world (and by quite a lot), there would be some very strong and clear evidence for it. As it stands, the evidence actually indicates that the Jewish people arose among and co-existed with the Canaanites rather than wiped them out in a series of genocides.

And unlike the fundamentalists, I do not take a "you have to believe every bit of the Bible is 100% true or you have to throw it out entirely" approach.

You can be forgiven for believing like that. But you are not grasping the significance of the Jews being the chosen race.

There is a God. There is a devil. Jesus did come to earth 2000 years ago. Abraham was the chosen bloodline. God protected the Jews. No army would stand against them. They would get their promised land. The reality of the cross is on par with reality of the Jewish victories / God's protection.

If you have trouble accepting their victories you must really have trouble with God feeding and shading them in the desert for 40 years.

I am not sure how one can accept the cross and not the protection of the Jews. Would you mind explaining that to me.

 

[River Jordan]

Justaname,

So I'm still not sure what you're looking for from me. I guess in sum I can reiterate that I believe many of those battle stories are exaggerated and some are likely even made up (understandable since many ancient cultures did the same thing). Like I said, the hard evidence indicates that the Israelites did not sweep into Canaan with history's largest army, but rather arose from within and co-existed with the Canaanites. So obviously if the genocides didn't happen, there also wasn't a command from God to commit them.

KingJ,

Sorry, but I don't see any sense in what you posted.

 

[justaname]

Justaname,

So I'm still not sure what you're looking for from me. I guess in sum I can reiterate that I believe many of those battle stories are exaggerated and some are likely even made up (understandable since many ancient cultures did the same thing). Like I said, the hard evidence indicates that the Israelites did not sweep into Canaan with history's largest army, but rather arose from within and co-existed with the Canaanites. So obviously if the genocides didn't happen, there also wasn't a command from God to commit them.

KingJ,

Sorry, but I don't see any sense in what you posted.

Thank you for the response...

I must ask how do you determine what to believe in the Bible and what to disregard as false? (I am not intending any sarcasm.)

Do you know then that you do not believe in the God of the Bible rather a god of your own imagination and determination?

The God of the Bible is defined through His holy writ. By choosing to accept only what you desire of what He disclosed of Himself you personally define Him as opposed to how He defines Himself. It is no longer His image or representation you are describing rather your imposed image of Him.

As to your conclusion...or it could have happened as described in the Bible and the Hebrews disobeyed God.

 

[River Jordan]

I must ask how do you determine what to believe in the Bible and what to disregard as false?

It's a bit more complicated than just "true or false". Lots of literary styles and the lessons and messages they convey are not tied to their historical accuracy. Specific to this issue, most cultures have "origin stories" that describe where they came from and how they came to live in a specific location. Some stories are obviously mythological, some are likely mythological, some are a combination of mythology and history, some are exaggerated history, and some are a mixture of all those things.

The OT accounts we're discussing are the Hebrews' origin stories. They tell the story of where the Israelites came from and how they came to live in the land of Canaan. So the question is, what type of origin story are they? Based on things like archaeology and comparative literature, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrews' origin stories are a mixture of mythology, history, and exaggeration. Given how common this is among cultures, this hardly comes as a surprise.

I've read arguments from both sides of this issue and I sided with the scholars I mention above. To put it simply, I found their case to be far more persuasive because they came across as objective, fair, and thorough, whereas those on the other side mostly put forth the sorts of arguments we've seen in this thread, i.e., "If it's in the Bible it has to be true" and "If you question one part of the Bible, then why not just throw it all out". As you've likely figured, I don't find that sort of thing at all persuasive.

Do you know then that you do not believe in the God of the Bible rather a god of your own imagination and determination?

We're all faced with interpretive choices. "You have to believe all of it" is an interpretive choice. Just as I might be fooling myself, so could you.

The God of the Bible is defined through His holy writ. By choosing to accept only what you desire of what He disclosed of Himself you personally define Him as opposed to how He defines Himself. It is no longer His image or representation you are describing rather your imposed image of Him.

This isn't about what I want to be true. This is about what I have concluded based on all sorts of factors (as I listed above).

As to your conclusion...or it could have happened as described in the Bible and the Hebrews disobeyed God.

As I said earlier, that just doesn't seem to be the case. For example, if the Hebrew army really was the largest that's ever existed on the planet, you'd think there'd be some extra-Biblical evidence for it somewhere. But there's none...not one bit. And the evidence we do have very much shows a Hebrew population that rather than conquering their way into Canaan, arose from within Canaan and co-existed with its inhabitants.

 

[justaname]

It's a bit more complicated than just "true or false". Lots of literary styles and the lessons and messages they convey are not tied to their historical accuracy. Specific to this issue, most cultures have "origin stories" that describe where they came from and how they came to live in a specific location. Some stories are obviously mythological, some are likely mythological, some are a combination of mythology and history, some are exaggerated history, and some are a mixture of all those things.

The OT accounts we're discussing are the Hebrews' origin stories. They tell the story of where the Israelites came from and how they came to live in the land of Canaan. So the question is, what type of origin story are they? Based on things like archaeology and comparative literature, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrews' origin stories are a mixture of mythology, history, and exaggeration. Given how common this is among cultures, this hardly comes as a surprise.

I've read arguments from both sides of this issue and I sided with the scholars I mention above. To put it simply, I found their case to be far more persuasive because they came across as objective, fair, and thorough, whereas those on the other side mostly put forth the sorts of arguments we've seen in this thread, i.e., "If it's in the Bible it has to be true" and "If you question one part of the Bible, then why not just throw it all out". As you've likely figured, I don't find that sort of thing at all persuasive.


We're all faced with interpretive choices. "You have to believe all of it" is an interpretive choice. Just as I might be fooling myself, so could you.

This isn't about what I want to be true. This is about what I have concluded based on all sorts of factors (as I listed above).


As I said earlier, that just doesn't seem to be the case. For example, if the Hebrew army really was the largest that's ever existed on the planet, you'd think there'd be some extra-Biblical evidence for it somewhere. But there's none...not one bit. And the evidence we do have very much shows a Hebrew population that rather than conquering their way into Canaan, arose from within Canaan and co-existed with its inhabitants.

Thanks for your honesty and response...

I appreciate your concept of interpretative choice. Still though this does not dispute the fact that you have crafted your own version of a god. I do comprehend your logic. I also agree I have my own interpretation of God, yet I would say mine is biblical.

Here is my reasoning...I accept the evidence as given within the book. You decipher the evidence given and omit or change what does not fit within your worldview. My worldview is considered a biblical worldview, you have a different worldview, I would say more secular, possibly more naturalistic based on our previous discussions.

You have rejected the God of the Bible using various filters and crafted your own god. This is a fair analysis, I hope you can appreciate it.

Does your worldview allow for a resurrection of the Christ as described in the gospels and the book of Acts? (Bodily resurrection)

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for your honesty and response...

You're welcome!

I appreciate your concept of interpretative choice. Still though this does not dispute the fact that you have crafted your own version of a god. I do comprehend your logic. I also agree I have my own interpretation of God, yet I would say mine is biblical.

And I would say mine is as well.

Here is my reasoning...I accept the evidence as given within the book.

So no matter what the Bible says, you have to accept it? What if the accounts we're discussing went into more graphic detail about exactly what must have happened? What if it had entire chapters describing soldiers beheading babies, stabbing children with swords, slicing open pregnant women, etc.?

You decipher the evidence given and omit or change what does not fit within your worldview.

No, not at all. I think you should re-read what I wrote in my last post. There's nothing in there like "If it doesn't fit my worldview, I reject it". As I tried to explain, I take as many things into consideration as I can and I make every attempt to evaluate them objectively. I do my best to look at all sides of an issue and fairly consider the merits of their arguments.

My worldview is considered a biblical worldview, you have a different worldview, I would say more secular, possibly more naturalistic based on our previous discussions.

Yes, I do take things like physical data into account. God created all that as well, so I think it's silly to ignore it when it doesn't tell you what you want.

You have rejected the God of the Bible using various filters and crafted your own god. This is a fair analysis, I hope you can appreciate it.

That's a pretty standard fundamentalist reply. As I keep pointing out, not everyone adopts this "all or none" fundamentalist mentality (in fact, among the world's Christians it's a minority viewpoint). And interestingly, other fundamentalists accuse you of the exact same thing because you don't accept the clear Word of God that depicts a geocentric universe and an earth that doesn't move.

Welcome to the "Rejects the God of the Bible Club".

Does your worldview allow for a resurrection of the Christ as described in the gospels and the book of Acts? (Bodily resurrection)

Of course.

 

[justaname]

Looking to the what if...

Sorry but that is truly invalid. The Bible describes what it describes, that is all.

I would say I believe all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (God). The OT contains a variety of literary styles including historical commentary. I believe God's historical commentary to be accurate.

Considering the worldview comment I suppose that is subjective.

As far as the physical data in concerned, the interpretation of that data, or lack of data altogether, causes the conclusions. The lens in which that data is viewed causes the interpretations. Different scholars can look at the same data and come with different conclusions.

I still stand on my assessment of the worldview deciding how the evidence is deciphered.

As far as the fundie idea, I prefer conservative.

I am glad to hear the resurrection is not an impossibility. Here though is where I scratch my head...how you can believe in a concept like that but reject the concept of the Hebraic origin account? (rhetorical question really)

 

[KingJ]

KingJ,

Sorry, but I don't see any sense in what you posted.

Sure you can't. You can believe in the miracles of Jesus but not the Jews. Or let me guess, you do not believe in the miracles of Jesus.

 

[River Jordan]

Looking to the what if...

Sorry but that is truly invalid. The Bible describes what it describes, that is all.

Well what do you think Israelite soldiers killing all the babies and children of a town involved?

I would say I believe all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (God). The OT contains a variety of literary styles including historical commentary. I believe God's historical commentary to be accurate.

Considering the worldview comment I suppose that is subjective.

Ok.

As far as the physical data in concerned, the interpretation of that data, or lack of data altogether, causes the conclusions. The lens in which that data is viewed causes the interpretations. Different scholars can look at the same data and come with different conclusions.

Sure, but not every interpretation is equal. So like a flat-earth advocate and a mainstream cosmologist are shown an image of the earth taken from a satellite. The flat-earther interprets it as "It must have been taken from a fish-eye lens, because I believe the earth is flat" and the cosmologist interprets it as "the earth is a sphere because we have a picture of it, and the camera was using a regular lens". Those two interpretations of the same data aren't equal.

That's why I made sure I said that I do my best to look at both sides of an argument and evaluate them fairly. That helps to separate the "it's true because I believe it" from the "it's true because that's just what the data shows".

I still stand on my assessment of the worldview deciding how the evidence is deciphered.

As far as the fundie idea, I prefer conservative.

I am glad to hear the resurrection is not an impossibility. Here though is where I scratch my head...how you can believe in a concept like that but reject the concept of the Hebraic origin account? (rhetorical question really)

Ok, fair enough.

 

[ewq1938]

Also God himself can not break his own law which was also enforced by the cross,

The law was made for man, not for God.

 

[ewq1938]

Do you believe killing a 1 month old baby is ever justified?

God killed all the first born and if any were that young they would have died and it was just. I can't think of man having a just cause to kill one though.