If any other god.....

[Athetotheist]

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)


"And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon....

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."(Deuteronomy 3:2,6)

If these directives were attributed to any deity other than Jehovah, would Bible apologists accept any excuse for them? If any apologist for another deity offered an excuse for such behavior in that deity, would Bible apologists concede and fall silent?

[TRANSPONDER]

He just quoted the Bible at you.

Exactly. He JUST quoted the Bible. When the question is “what does this quote mean and why do you think that” you have to do more than that. Asserting that it clearly means what you think it means is offering no rational support.

Even if there was any reason but faithbased denial to read this as 'Engage them according to the rules of war, the first to raise a white flag loses, respect their property' it is still God ordering an attack on another people to grab their land. Indeed it pretty much guarantees that the previous occupants would have to be eliminated. And isn't that what they did? Why would the hebrews on getting a message like that interpret it as 'play Nice,love your enemies'? I'm sure that wasn't what they did. I'm sure that wasn't what they did. Isn' it clear that you are denying even what the Bible says in favor of what you would want it to say.

I did not say this was figurative language meaning your quotes above. Yes, God ordered them to attack a people and to drive them from the land and to kill people. The reason offered is that they were committing great sins. God gave them plenty of time to repent and correct their ways, but they didn’t. In 1 Samuel 15:33, Agag is told “as your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” Israel was supposed to be different, but they often go the wrong way and God brings judgment on them as well, befitting how they treated others. Eventually this is through Assyria and Babylon taking over their land. I don’t think that kind of judgment is wrong, especially with how many opportunities God gave them to change.

I'm sure that wasn't what they did. Isn' it clear that you are denying even what the Bible says in favor of what you would want it to say.

This is just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support. "I'm right because it's clear I'm right." That's not a rational argument.

That's the excuse always offered for atrocity in the Bible 'they were committing sins'. The only sin I can recall was inconvenientky being on the land the Hebrews wanted to occupy. At least you now appear to accept that what it says is what it means, though you now try to excuse bald -face aggression with atrocity. They were all wicked? The dude in the pottery casting pots? The wife in the house making dinner?The boys in with the teacher learning to write? The priest in the Temple saying prayers? Yes of course because they were the wrong prayers, the wife is no longer a virgin, the only Good Amalekite is a dead one, and nits grow into lice. Take no prisoners except the virgin girls, they are all wicked you know.

Now, what support do you have for you being right? Because so far I have only seen that you said it.

[The Tanager]

Yes, God ordered them to attack a people and to drive them from the land and to kill people. The reason offered is that they were committing great sins. God gave them plenty of time to repent and correct their ways, but they didn’t.

Anyone can write a book and make the same kind of claim.

Sure, but that wasn’t the critique you originally made and what I’ve been responding to.

The argument isn't, "I'm right because it's clear I'm right."; the argument is, "This is what it means because this is what it says and the context doesn't say that it means anything else."

We aren’t disagreeing on what it says; I didn’t question your translation of the verse. We are disagreeing on what it means. Saying it means what it says is just begging the question. Saying the context doesn’t say it means anything else is more begging of the question, instead of offering support for why you think it means X. You’ve simply asserted your belief using different phrases.

What "rational argument" do you have suggesting that it doesn't mean what it says? You don't seem to have much of one since between the two quotes from you I've used above, you're denying what it says and trying to justify what it says at the same time.

You made a claim and I’m analyzing that claim; I’m asking for your support for it. Your view isn’t right unless I can prove a different view. In other words, I’m arguing that without rational support you should move to being agnostic on this issue. But if you do that, your critique in this thread is done away with. If you are satisfied there is nothing else to say regarding your claim, then I’d be happy to move on to what I think is the most rational view on this language issue.

[The Tanager]

That's the excuse always offered for atrocity in the Bible 'they were committing sins'. The only sin I can recall was inconvenientky being on the land the Hebrews wanted to occupy.

We are talking about what the text claims in this thread. Passages like Deut 9:3-5 clearly talk about God judging their wickedness through Israel conquering them and this land. Other passages speak of how they sacrificed children (like 1 Kings 11:4-11), which we also see from extra-Biblical study. Amalek attacked Israel while they were tired and weary from their escape from Egypt (Deut 25:17-19). It’s that kind of stuff. What verse(s) are you recalling that speak of the sins of these nations being judged by God was that they were only on this land that the Hebrews wanted?

At least you now appear to accept that what it says is what it means, though you now try to excuse bald -face aggression with atrocity. They were all wicked? The dude in the pottery casting pots? The wife in the house making dinner?The boys in with the teacher learning to write? The priest in the Temple saying prayers? Yes of course because they were the wrong prayers, the wife is no longer a virgin, the only Good Amalekite is a dead one, and nits grow into lice. Take no prisoners except the virgin girls, they are all wicked you know.

Now, what support do you have for you being right? Because so far I have only seen that you said it.

I haven’t changed anything I’ve said about the text. You may have dropped previous assumptions about what I’ve claimed, but that is you changing not me. I am not now accepting that what you think the text means (by what it says) is what it means. And, again, my position is that such language is not necessarily literal. I’m not saying all were wicked or that all their activities are wicked. It’s not about their prayers or having sex with their spouse.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the excuse always offered for atrocity in the Bible 'they were committing sins'. The only sin I can recall was inconvenientky being on the land the Hebrews wanted to occupy.

We are talking about what the text claims in this thread. Passages like Deut 9:3-5 clearly talk about God judging their wickedness through Israel conquering them and this land. Other passages speak of how they sacrificed children (like 1 Kings 11:4-11), which we also see from extra-Biblical study. Amalek attacked Israel while they were tired and weary from their escape from Egypt (Deut 25:17-19). It’s that kind of stuff. What verse(s) are you recalling that speak of the sins of these nations being judged by God was that they were only on this land that the Hebrews wanted?

We are talking about two things; whether violent conquest and som war crimes (to modern thinking) m is what was ordered and done (so it says) or whether it is a poetic metaphor for treating the enemy nicely (still unprovoked conquest). Whi is the second thing, trying to excuse it as 'justified' (because they were wicked) even if not a good order or action.o

At least you now appear to accept that what it says is what it means, though you now try to excuse bald -face aggression with atrocity. They were all wicked? The dude in the pottery casting pots? The wife in the house making dinner?The boys in with the teacher learning to write? The priest in the Temple saying prayers? Yes of course because they were the wrong prayers, the wife is no longer a virgin, the only Good Amalekite is a dead one, and nits grow into lice. Take no prisoners except the virgin girls, they are all wicked you know.

Now, what support do you have for you being right? Because so far I have only seen that you said it.

I haven’t changed anything I’ve said about the text. You may have dropped previous assumptions about what I’ve claimed, but that is you changing not me. I am not now accepting that what you think the text means (by what it says) is what it means. And, again, my position is that such language is not necessarily literal. I’m not saying all were wicked or that all their activities are wicked. It’s not about their prayers or having sex with their spouse.

You are being evasive and shifting the goalposts. I never said you changed the text. We both read what it says. Two things - is what it says (aggressive conquest and atrocity) what it means, and is that order from God (it says) good or an act of evil? I already know because you tried to excuse it with this 'they were all wicked' excuse. Ball very much in your court, and no more evasion and goalpost -shifting. Straight 2 - part question; out of respect for me, the readers, and indeed your self and your case, straight , simple 2part answer.
Which I guess we won't get as then the Bibleclaim (God is good) would collapse, wouldn't it?

p.s I am no a great student of the OT (because only the NT matters, right?) so I am taking these atrocities for granted. I had a look at a list of 'atrocities (it is a long one) and this seems the relevant one.

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3

numbers 31.15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

[The Tanager]

Two things - is what it says (aggressive conquest and atrocity) what it means, and is that order from God (it says) good or an act of evil? I already know because you tried to excuse it with this 'they were all wicked' excuse. Ball very much in your court, and no more evasion and goalpost -shifting. Straight 2 - part question; out of respect for me, the readers, and indeed your self and your case, straight , simple 2part answer.
Which I guess we won't get as then the Bibleclaim (God is good) would collapse, wouldn't it?

I've already answered that multiple times. In response to athetotheist and your unsupported claim that it means what you think it means by what it says, I've said it could be poetic metaphor for conquest and driving out the people (part 1). It is not unprovoked conquest as far as God is concerned (and sometimes to Israel, like with the Amalekites) because of how they treated others (part 2).

p.s I am no a great student of the OT (because only the NT matters, right?) so I am taking these atrocities for granted. I had a look at a list of 'atrocities (it is a long one) and this seems the relevant one.

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3

Why would only the NT matter? The Amalekites were consistently at war with Israel in the OT and working against God. The beginning event of that was noted, but all hearers would have the larger history in mind.

As to Numbers 31, who does the text say is upset about the women being kept alive? It's Moses, not God. God tells them (25:16-18, 31:2) to attack the Midianites for what they did (starting in 22). Israel goes further and takes spoil for themselves instead of just waging war and Moses gets mad and goes further and tells them to do what you ascribe to God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Two things - is what it says (aggressive conquest and atrocity) what it means, and is that order from God (it says) good or an act of evil? I already know because you tried to excuse it with this 'they were all wicked' excuse. Ball very much in your court, and no more evasion and goalpost -shifting. Straight 2 - part question; out of respect for me, the readers, and indeed your self and your case, straight , simple 2part answer.
Which I guess we won't get as then the Bibleclaim (God is good) would collapse, wouldn't it?

I've already answered that multiple times. In response to athetotheist and your unsupported claim that it means what you think it means by what it says, I've said it could be poetic metaphor for conquest and driving out the people (part 1). It is not unprovoked conquest as far as God is concerned (and sometimes to Israel, like with the Amalekites) because of how they treated others (part 2).

Yes, but you know how it is - the Bible apologists makes a claim, the goddless bastard rebuts it and a chance is given to do better and move on. It doesn't look good to say "I've already given the answer to this". Again, if it happened it was bad, and God apologistds need to do some excusing, which you do below.

p.s I am no a great student of the OT (because only the NT matters, right?) so I am taking these atrocities for granted. I had a look at a list of 'atrocities (it is a long one) and this seems the relevant one.

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3

Why would only the NT matter? The Amalekites were consistently at war with Israel in the OT and working against God. The beginning event of that was noted, but all hearers would have the larger history in mind.

As to Numbers 31, who does the text say is upset about the women being kept alive? It's Moses, not God. God tells them (25:16-18, 31:2) to attack the Midianites for what they did (starting in 22). Israel goes further and takes spoil for themselves instead of just waging war and Moses gets mad and goes further and tells them to do what you ascribe to God.

Yes, but it's like the 'slavery' excuse (apart from denying that is what it is) "It was normal back then". Yes, which is why the actions are better accounted for as what human thought is, not what divine thought is. The orders of God, might have been considered the human norm of the time, but Jesus would not approve, to be frank. And nor do 20th and later human moralists. "Modern morals and ethics are better than Biblical ones". And even Christian ones, or more practical, at least.

This is not good enough for a supposedly good God, and your excuses will not wash with anyone who is not equally in denial about how bad Biblegod looks.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #52

Saying it means what it says is just begging the question.

That creates a serious problem with John 3:16.

If you are satisfied there is nothing else to say regarding your claim, then I’d be happy to move on to what I think is the most rational view on this language issue.

Why do I have to agree to offer no more counterargument before you'll present your case? If you have an argument, why not just present it instead of playing this game?

[The Tanager]

Saying it means what it says is just begging the question.

That creates a serious problem with John 3:16.

No, it doesn't. You still use textual and cultural context to come up with an interpretation, just like every single sentence in every single text ever written.

If you are satisfied there is nothing else to say regarding your claim, then I’d be happy to move on to what I think is the most rational view on this language issue.

Why do I have to agree to offer no more counterargument before you'll present your case? If you have an argument, why not just present it instead of playing this game?

I think clear, critical thinking is boosted by taking one issue at a time. You may not want to work that way, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to play some game.

[The Tanager]

It doesn't look good to say "I've already given the answer to this".

You asked a question and then said you didn't expect an answer (which implies I haven't already given it). I respond by saying that I did already give it and then reiterated what I already gave in case someone missed it. You have heard that answer before. You know that. You've responded to it before. And my response doesn't look good? What am I supposed to say when you claim I didn't give an answer that I clearly have?

Yes, but it's like the 'slavery' excuse (apart from denying that is what it is) "It was normal back then". Yes, which is why the actions are better accounted for as what human thought is, not what divine thought is. The orders of God, might have been considered the human norm of the time, but Jesus would not approve, to be frank.

Where does Jesus show disapproval of these passages? Jesus always talks positively of the Hebrew scriptures, he talks about how Scripture can't be broken (John 10:35), He was a devout Scripture-believing Jew.

And nor do 20th and later human moralists. "Modern morals and ethics are better than Biblical ones". And even Christian ones, or more practical, at least.

How are modern morals and ethics better than Biblical ones? What is your objective standard to make that claim?

This is not good enough for a supposedly good God, and your excuses will not wash with anyone who is not equally in denial about how bad Biblegod looks.

My interpretation is an excuse because I'm in denial about the clear truth (i.e., your interpretation)? This is another example of begging your answer and empty psychologizing about what I'm doing rather than actually dealing with my reasoning or rationally supporting your own.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #58

That creates a serious problem with John 3:16.

No, it doesn't. You still use textual and cultural context to come up with an interpretation, just like every single sentence in every single text ever written.

In other words, you still decide for yourself which text to take literally and which to take figuratively?

How do the textual and cultural context of 1 Sam. 15:3 suggest anything other than what the text says?

I think clear, critical thinking is boosted by taking one issue at a time. You may not want to work that way, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to play some game.

One issue at a time? Then how about taking the issue of what the text says first?