Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

bob_2 · 04-03-09 4:49 pm

<center>Good Question!! How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?</center> <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html" target=_top>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html</a> Read the context of God's actions, not just John's question where he moralizes without any context, showing the evil of those destroyed.

bob_2 · 04-03-09 4:56 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Conclusion: Judgment is called God's "strange work" in the OT prophets. What for us humans is the problem of "why does God not do anything about evil and cruel people" is simply the other side of His patience with us. He hopes that we will accept a love of the truth and a commitment to value. In love, He deliberately "believes the best" (I Cor 13). What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people. Far from being the "genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites", it was instead the "firm, yet just--and even a little merciful to the masses--removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly through migration." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html" target=_top>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html</a>

roca · 04-04-09 11:41 am

Judgment is called God's "strange work" in the OT prophets. Really, the OT prophets did that? Yet we find it only one time in the entire Old Testament...none in the new. And it's usage, where we do find it is cloaked in language that is none to clear. I suppose that is why they can make their statement because they feel that since the text is obscure they can make it mean whatever they want. Not really a good technique. "(Isa 28:17 NIV) I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line; hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie, and water will overflow your hiding place. (Isa 28:18 NIV) Your covenant with death will be annulled; your agreement with the grave will not stand. When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by, you will be beaten down by it. (Isa 28:19 NIV) As often as it comes it will carry you away; morning after morning, by day and by night, it will sweep through." The understanding of this message will bring sheer terror. (Isa 28:20 NIV) The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you. (Isa 28:21 NIV) The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim, he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon-- to do his work, his strange work, and perform his task, his alien task. (Isa 28:22 NIV) Now stop your mocking, or your chains will become heavier; the Lord, the LORD Almighty, has told me of the destruction decreed against the whole land. (Isa 28:23 NIV) Listen and hear my voice; pay attention and hear what I say. (Isa 28:24 NIV) When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually? Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil? Here is what happened at MT. Perazim (2 Sam 5:19 NIV) so David inquired of the LORD, "Shall I go and attack the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?" The LORD answered him, "Go, for I will surely hand the Philistines over to you." (2 Sam 5:20 NIV) So David went to Baal Perazim, and there he defeated them. He said, "As waters break out, the LORD has broken out against my enemies before me." So that place was called Baal Perazim. (2 Sam 5:21 NIV) The Philistines abandoned their idols there, and David and his men carried them off. Here is what happened at Gilboa: "(Josh 10:10 NIV) The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. (Josh 10:11 NIV) As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites." So really judgment is not God's strange act it is that He kills people to win battles for Israel. But I guess that would not work as well with the conclusion the article wants to produce.

bob_2 · 04-04-09 1:00 pm

Isaiah 28:21 The LORD will rise up as he did at Mount Perazim, he will rouse himself as in the Valley of Gibeon— to do his work, his strange work, and perform his task, his alien task. Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

bob_2 · 04-04-09 1:13 pm

The word strange may not be used often, but God takes no joy in meting out punishment as mentioned in many places in the Bible.

renie · 04-04-09 4:56 pm

I'm with John. I am beginning to believe that the God portrayed in a lot of the bible is not the true God. God understands that we, none of us here on earth, have a very easy time. We didn't choose this planet of sin. We are, most of us, doing the best we can. I'm looking for a kinder, more loving God than religion portrays. There's no one of the six billion + people on this earth who doesn't have heartache, disappointment and despair. As I've said before, we ALL deserve a medal for just living out our lives here on earth. Maybe Jesus's death on the cross is that medal. I suspect some of you will tell me I'm putting God in my box. So be it. God can't condemn me too much for trying to see him is a kinder light. renie

bob_2 · 04-04-09 7:43 pm

I guess we could shut down here and join HS.com and believe God only has one trait: LOVE. But I don't believe God can be defined that simply. And the Bible points out that He isn't that simple a God. Just like Irene, you have many sides to your personality, He does too.

elaine · 04-04-09 10:32 pm

Renie, even the writers of the Bible "created" their idea of God, so why shouldn't we? Should we believe that only writer's describing God long ago knew more about her than anyone later? What does it mean "no man has seen God at any time"? An abstract idea is unknown so people attempt to describe their own ideas.

bob_2 · 04-04-09 11:46 pm

If you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, right, Elaine.

don · 04-05-09 8:10 am

even the writers of the Bible "created" their idea of God, so why shouldn't we Elaine, you state this as though it were a proven fact. You have stated an adopted theory. I am not saying this to be negative, just to point out what I believe to be a more accurate way of looking at the matter. My mother reported seeing "angel wings" before a rather distressful church board meeting. Another time, at another board meeting, she heard a voice telling her to ask a certain person to leave the meeting. This person left, when she came back, her testimony contradicted that of her husband. I don't understand my mother's metaphysical experience, but I will not say she "created" these experiences. If we consider the Bible as a valuable report on matters of faith and divine interaction with humnaity, then we will seek to understand. The Bible writers wrote from their own experience. If we believe Jesus and the apostles, those ancient reports should shape our thinking. This does not solve the problems of the text but it puts us on the vantage of faith. The case of King Saul illustrates the problem when dealing with the actions of God. First Chronicles 10 tells how Saul fell on his sword and killed himself. A few verses later, the writer explains that God killed Saul. Can we have it both ways? I think so. The Bible presents God as being sovereign, or in charge. For the believer in the story of God and King Saul, the question is one of meaning and lessons learned. When we say that God killed Saul, what do we mean? All believers should acknowledge that the Biblical text needs to be interpreted by grand principles:<ul><li>As humans, we have free choice. <LI>God has principles for us to follow: Love, integrity, and justice. <LI>We, by faith, interpret God's role and actions in our lives and those in our lives. <LI>God is love. <LI>God holds us accountable for our actions.</li></ul>This brief list does not cover all the issues. I do agree with Elaine that we need to forge our own concept of God based on the stated principles. I am beginning to believe that the God portrayed in a lot of the bible is not the true God. Marcion, of Gnostic persuasion, went so far as to say the Old Testament God was a devil. If we take our discomfort with the God of the Bible and then reject it outright, we create a bigger problem. If the writings of the last 3000+ years are no longer helpful in our quest for God, then we lose the very provision God has ordained for our spiritual development. IMO, of course. . (Message edited by Don on April 05, 2009)

john8verse32 · 04-05-09 10:22 am

If the writings of the last 3000+ years are no longer helpful ..... they are helpful....they show us what NOT TO DO... what NOT TO BE LIKE... what not to BELIEVE... and that we've come a long way, baby... but we still have farther to go. and the New Test tries to show us the direction to head.... (away from Mosesianity)

elaine · 04-05-09 8:03 pm

Don, none of us have the right to challenge your mother's experiences. But they are hers, not for anyone else, are they? Individuals should not expect others to accept their dreams or visions as directive for others. I certainly agree with you that if we followed the principles and teachings of Jesus that would be sufficiently difficult to occupy all our time without adding additional imperatives from much of the Bible as applicable today. Currently, I'm reading "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidde Contradictions in the Bible (and why we don't know about them" and would suggest that it could help to answer student's questions, as it was written by a professor of NT who was faced with just such questions. As you are not one who believes that we should ignore such contradictions in the Bible but be ready for explanations, it is a challenging book, which I've already read more than half in the last two days.

renie · 04-06-09 4:15 pm

Who is the author of 'Jesus Interrupted" Elaine? Is is readily available? renie

elaine · 04-06-09 6:50 pm

Renie, Bart Ehrman is the author and it's readily available at amazon.com. I believe you will enjoy it's provocative thesis.

bob_2 · 04-06-09 11:17 pm

I for one will let the dust settle before I get too excited about any of Ehrman' s book. Sounds like a serious skeptic. I'll let scholars in text analysis have at it before I as a layman pollute my mind or try and determine truth from a knownn skeptic.

elaine · 04-07-09 9:17 pm

Bob, FYI, Ehrman is a renown scholar. Evidently, you must know the personal beliefs of a writer before reading his writing. Facts are facts, and there is no recognized Bible scholar who disagrees with Ehrman. You may disagree with his personal beliefs, but only if you become sufficiently informed on the history of Christianity and how it developed, are you able to judge the facts he presents. Opinions are not facts.

pilgrim99 · 04-07-09 9:50 pm

Elaine, it is generally acknowledged that Ehrman is a highly recognized bible scholar.It is also recognized by some that he is an agnostic. I am not discouraging anyone from reading his work, but just pointing out his worldview.

john8verse32 · 04-08-09 12:34 pm

"agnostic scholar".... wouldn't that be the best way to be a scholar? approach the question of anything without advance prejudice? say, "I dunno" before researching things? unlike many believers (believers in anything, not just religion) who claim they already know it all, God (or something) told them so, and any research which leads away from their already accepted conclusion must be suspect in advance... and ultimately discarded. I accept "agnostic" as a badge of honor... it means I have the opportunity to keep searching for answers, since so far, the disparity of the multiple lines of evidence has not yet "convicted" me of any one thing for which I am willing to kill those who disagree with my conclusions, much less allow them to kill me or get away question-free with threatening that their loving God will do it for them. this is a scan of my brain trying to take every possibility into consideration: <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/board-post.cgi?action=posting_upload_form&what=show&img=944" alt="mybrain.gif"> at the bottom of it all, many people keep trying to hand us their singular message, all nicely packaged and boxed up, but the bottom keeps falling out, and the ball gets dropped.

bob_2 · 04-08-09 2:23 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:... He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism, and he has certainly written works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which have been variously reviewed, not to mention severely critiqued by other textual critics such as Gordon D. Fee, and his own mentor Bruce Metzger (whom I also did some study with). He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters. ... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html" target=_top>http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-i nterrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html</a> Also, note this introductory statement William Lane Craig made before a debate with Bart D. Ehrman on the Resurrection of Christ. He may shed some light on how both men's minds work: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In preparing for this debate, I had quite a surprise. I was amazed to discover how much our life stories are alike: as slightly marginalized teenage boys with some passing acquaintance with Christianity, both of our lives were turned upside down when at the age of 15 or 16 we each experienced a spiritual rebirth through personal faith in Christ. Eager to serve him, we both attended the same college in Illinois, Wheaton College, where we both even studied Greek under the same professor. After graduation we both went on to pursue doctoral studies. Thereafter our paths radically diverged. I received a fellowship from the German government to study the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Ferdinand Hahn at the University of Munich and at Cambridge University. As a result of my studies, I became even more convinced of the historical credibility of that event. Of course, ever since my conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen. It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive. But as a result of my studies, I came to see that a remarkably good case can be made for Jesus’ resurrection historically as well, and I hope to show tonight that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of certain well-established facts about Jesus. Sadly, Dr. Ehrman came to radically different conclusions as a result of his studies. In his most recent book he poignantly describes how he came to lose his teenage faith. I’m not sure, based on Dr. Ehrman’s writings, whether he still believes in Jesus’ resurrection or not. He never denies it. But he does deny that there can be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He maintains that there cannot be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Now this is a very bold claim, and so naturally I was interested to see what argument he would offer for its justification. I was stunned to discover that the philosophical argument he gives for this claim is an old argument against the identification of miracles which I had studied during my doctoral research and which is regarded by most philosophers today as demonstrably fallacious. So as not to steal Dr. Ehrman’s thunder, I’ll wait until he’s presented his argument before I show where the fallacy lies. For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection might look. In constructing a case for Jesus’ resurrection, it’s important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence. This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars. On the other hand, the explanation of that evidence is controversial. That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy. Now although Dr. Ehrman says that there cannot be any historical evidence for the resurrection, we’ll see that what he really means is that the resurrection cannot be the best explanation of that evidence, not that there is no evidence. That leads me, then, to my first major contention, namely: (I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: o Jesus’ burial o the discovery of his empty tomb o his post-mortem appearances o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf" target=_top>http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/ resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf</a> If interested, I'll let you dig into the rest of the PDF on this debate. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 08, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-08-09 2:42 pm

Here is another glimpse a Ehrman's arguments: <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/ezine/ijindex.html" target=_top>http://www.tektonics.org/ezine/ijindex.html</a> You have to join to see the whole argument against Ehrman, but there seems to be enough to show Elaine that Jesus Interrupted isn't everything it is cracked up to be.

elaine · 04-08-09 2:48 pm

FWIW, Ehrman came to his view because of theodicy: the paradox of God as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and yet allowing all the suffering in this earth. If he is all powerful, why has he allowed the innocent to suffer in such natural, not man-made disasters? Anyone care to tackle that subject? Free will causes many disasters, but not earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and tsnumais. Is God in control or not?

bob_2 · 04-08-09 3:00 pm

Elaine, You are selective in your reading. Lee Strobel's Case for Faith gets into these issues but you care not read some authors, do you? Remember the Bear Trap story I relayed in another thread. Short term suffering sometimes leading to long term gains and benefit, not seen by us.

bob_2 · 04-08-09 3:10 pm

<a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=3317#POST3317" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=3317#POST3317</a>

pilgrim99 · 04-08-09 5:32 pm

John, The Bible is a single story. An agnostic can make a good living studying the Bible, and yet miss this one single story. An agnostic approach to Bible study is probably included in this statement of Jesus<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life. John 5:39-40 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>This comment from a non agnostic legal scholar might also describe these agnostic Bible scholars<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these. For some of these insinuate themselves into households and captivate weak women who are overwhelmed with sins and led along by various passions. Such women are always seeking instruction, yet never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:5-7 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Personally, I would really have liked to been at this Bible study, taught by someone who was not an agnostic BTW<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:So he said to them, “You foolish people – how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Wasn’t it necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. Luke 24:25-27 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>An agnostic studying the Bible, would be like me studying mail addressed to John Aflke, might have some interesting nuggets, but serves no real purpose for me. If your body of correspondence is voluminous and interesting, I could even write books about it, critique it and become a recognized scholar of John Aflke. Of course this would be a meaningless activity in terms of eternity. Come to think of it, following an agnostic Bible scholar is kind of like following a blind guide. Since we all have free will, we are free to choose to follow these blind guides. Personally, I don't see the point, but that's just me.

john8verse32 · 04-08-09 6:10 pm

The Bible is a single story. "biblios"... a bibliographic collection, a library of many often disparate stories from : byblos noun "an ancient Mediterranean seaport that was a thriving city state in Phoenicia during the second millennium BC; was the chief port for the export of papyrus; located in Lebanon to the north of Beirut; now partially excavated " whence the name for "paper" came about, which made up so many disparate "books" of the Bible. following an agnostic Bible scholar is kind of like following a blind guide. sdrawkcab ti evah uoy... an agnostic guide probably would not want to take too many steps in the dark without knowing what was there to trip over...and certainly would not want to be responsible for asking others to follow him blindly into the unknown. An agnostic certainly would not threaten to kill those who disagreed.... and an agnostic is repelled at the thought of anybody else forcing their will on anybody at the threat of burning them to death. An agnostic guide would say: lets study this, and find the best path....BEFORE we start. while a believer too often seems more than willing to rush head first eyes closed in the direction pointed by others without asking why, when, where, and how is this the right thing to do. hollaring all the way: ...FOLLOW ME my agnostic motto: be sure you're ready before you jump on board..... it could be quite a ride!!!!!! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/948.jpg" alt=""> (Message edited by john8verse32 on April 08, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 04-03-09 4:49 pm

Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#2 04-03-09 4:56 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#3 04-04-09 11:41 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#4 04-04-09 1:00 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#5 04-04-09 1:13 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#6 04-04-09 4:56 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#7 04-04-09 7:43 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#8 04-04-09 10:32 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#9 04-04-09 11:46 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#10 04-05-09 8:10 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#11 04-05-09 10:22 am

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#12 04-05-09 8:03 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#13 04-06-09 4:15 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#14 04-06-09 6:50 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#15 04-06-09 11:17 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#16 04-07-09 9:17 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#17 04-07-09 9:50 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#18 04-08-09 12:34 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#19 04-08-09 2:23 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#20 04-08-09 2:42 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#21 04-08-09 2:48 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#22 04-08-09 3:00 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#23 04-08-09 3:10 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#24 04-08-09 5:32 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

#25 04-08-09 6:10 pm

Re: Good Question! How could God massacre/annihilate the Canaan

Board footer