Genocide in the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(07-10-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not denying that the Bible condone a genocide between ancient Israelites and ancient Canaanites...

Not a long memory on you some days, eh?

(27-08-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: I'd like to know what was so fucking "just" about the purported Israelite blitzkrieg on Canaan. Even the way the morons tell the story, the Canaanites were sitting there minding their own fucking business and these murdering savages came pouring out of the desert to kill them.

Wins the “so so out-of-context award.”

1. There was advance knowledge of the Canaanites (about 40 years’ worth) that the Jews were god’s people, coming out of Egypt with smoke and wonders, and were killing everyone, and even Balak gave them four blessings when Baalam cursed them.

2. The Canaanites were doing some bad stuff. ABRAHAM was told they were the worst kind of pagans and then god gave them 400 YEARS to repent.

3. It’s not a genocide when the people you “blitzkrieg” have giants, fortified cities, huge armies, mercenaries they pay from other lands, and iron chariots. The Jews have left Egypt WITHOUT ANY WEAPONS in their possession unless they picked some up at a… wait for it… FLOOD SALE. The Jews were SO SCARED OF ATTACKING THE PEOPLES WITH THEIR “BLITZKRIEGING ARMIES” they disobeyed god and wandered forty years!

4. You also win the “this is not genocide award”.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(07-10-2013 02:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-10-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not denying that the Bible condone a genocide between ancient Israelites and ancient Canaanites...

Not a long memory on you some days, eh?

(27-08-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Wins the “so so out-of-context award.”

1. There was advance knowledge of the Canaanites (about 40 years’ worth) that the Jews were god’s people, coming out of Egypt with smoke and wonders, and were killing everyone, and even Balak gave them four blessings when Baalam cursed them.

2. The Canaanites were doing some bad stuff. ABRAHAM was told they were the worst kind of pagans and then god gave them 400 YEARS to repent.

3. It’s not a genocide when the people you “blitzkrieg” have giants, fortified cities, huge armies, mercenaries they pay from other lands, and iron chariots. The Jews have left Egypt WITHOUT ANY WEAPONS in their possession unless they picked some up at a… wait for it… FLOOD SALE. The Jews were SO SCARED OF ATTACKING THE PEOPLES WITH THEIR “BLITZKRIEGING ARMIES” they disobeyed god and wandered forty years!

4. You also win the “this is not genocide award”.

Hey! I'm able to change my mind in the face of evidence. You are rehasing old wounds here for no good reason.

"I look unto Jordan, and what do I see... Mrs. Jordan" - Dean Williams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(25-09-2013 01:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  All,

I'm cutting to the chase here:

1) Liberal scholars believe the HB was written circa 300 BC and that the Exodus and the Israelite conquest of Canaan are myths. Therefore, you are complaining about genocide and slavery that never occured.

2) Bible believers say the writing was earlier and there was a genocide and slavery. They also finished reading the rest of the HB to see that something like 200 times in it, god warned the Israelites that syncretism and inter-marriage would lead to death for the Israelites, diaspora and persecution. These pledges/prophecies came to pass!

Pick one.

3) The entire first 5 books of the Bible are mythological and bear no relationship to the actual events. They were edited and rearranged by priests looking to legitimise the southern kingdom of Judah after the fall of the northern Kingdom.

Not rejecting this outright, if I were to accept this as true I'd have questions:

*Why do both sets of editors, northern and southern, blame the break between the two on southern kings' apostasies?

*Why do both sets of editors find nothing laudable about ANY northern king?

*If the writing was dated very late as some scholars suggest, why write 500-plus pages of unrelated mythic history first?

*If the writing was as late as post-exilic times, why did both sides seek conflict with disparaging the other in their writings? Shouldn't they all as israelites seek solidarity as the nation was rebuilt by post-captivity exiles?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 03:27 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 01:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  3) The entire first 5 books of the Bible are mythological and bear no relationship to the actual events. They were edited and rearranged by priests looking to legitimise the southern kingdom of Judah after the fall of the northern Kingdom.

Not rejecting this outright, if I were to accept this as true I'd have questions:

*Why do both sets of editors, northern and southern, blame the break between the two on southern kings' apostasies?

*Why do both sets of editors find nothing laudable about ANY northern king?

*If the writing was dated very late as some scholars suggest, why write 500-plus pages of unrelated mythic history first?

*If the writing was as late as post-exilic times, why did both sides seek conflict with disparaging the other in their writings? Shouldn't they all as israelites seek solidarity as the nation was rebuilt by post-captivity exiles?

These are actually good questions, so bravo for that. I will tackle them individually with the caveat that I am an amature in this feild. I hold no degrees and have not taken collegiate level courses. If I make a mistake in this it is an honest one. There are several on this board with much better training and letters behind their name and I freely admit that. That out of the way on to your concerns.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If the writing was dated very late as some scholars suggest, why write 500-plus pages of unrelated mythic history first?

I will start with the easiest question first. Almost every civilization had some kind of divine origin to their city/state/empire Athens was supposedly founded by the goddess Athena, Rome was founded by Remus in memory of his twin Romulus after a titanic struggle, and of course there is Gilgamesh. So it is not surprising that this tribe of people would have their own mythical founders.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Why do both sets of editors find nothing laudable about ANY northern king?

I believe the answer to this is rather straight forward. The southern priests in cobbling together the oral traditions simply ascribed the success of the northern kings to their southern counterparts. Thus gave rise to King David and King Solomon as great kings. However archeology shows that in the time they are supposed to have lived their capital was nothing but a small mountain town with not even a wall let alone a great capital of a supposed empire.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If the writing was as late as post-exilic times, why did both sides seek conflict with disparaging the other in their writings? Shouldn't they all as israelites seek solidarity as the nation was rebuilt by post-captivity exiles?

The Northern Kingdom had been conquered by the Assyrians at this point but the Northern Priesthood had not completely disbanded and did hold on to some of the political power. The golden Calf that was the symbol of the northern temple of Yahweh was discredited as a brazen idol during this struggle. But they did retain enough power to forgo a complete whitewashing of the former traditions.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Why do both sets of editors, northern and southern, blame the break between the two on southern kings' apostasies?

I am going to plead ignorance on this question at the present time. If I have time I will try and find an answer (unless someone else wishes to) and get back to you.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Just when you think all hope is lost, the conversation turns in a rational direction. Asking why something makes sense to YOU is such a beautiful turn..... though I know it will be short-lived, will enjoy it for the time being. [*SIGH*]

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(08-10-2013 03:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Not rejecting this outright, if I were to accept this as true I'd have questions:

*Why do both sets of editors, northern and southern, blame the break between the two on southern kings' apostasies?

*Why do both sets of editors find nothing laudable about ANY northern king?

*If the writing was dated very late as some scholars suggest, why write 500-plus pages of unrelated mythic history first?

*If the writing was as late as post-exilic times, why did both sides seek conflict with disparaging the other in their writings? Shouldn't they all as israelites seek solidarity as the nation was rebuilt by post-captivity exiles?

These are actually good questions, so bravo for that. I will tackle them individually with the caveat that I am an amature in this feild. I hold no degrees and have not taken collegiate level courses. If I make a mistake in this it is an honest one. There are several on this board with much better training and letters behind their name and I freely admit that. That out of the way on to your concerns.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If the writing was dated very late as some scholars suggest, why write 500-plus pages of unrelated mythic history first?

I will start with the easiest question first. Almost every civilization had some kind of divine origin to their city/state/empire Athens was supposedly founded by the goddess Athena, Rome was founded by Remus in memory of his twin Romulus after a titanic struggle, and of course there is Gilgamesh. So it is not surprising that this tribe of people would have their own mythical founders.

Follow-up: We'd then have hundreds of pages of mythology and then spin on contemporary, real events. Can you think of another volume of religion that starts with hundreds of pages of mythos and then hundreds of pages of real events? I was unable to think of one... it seems like a strange conjunction. BB says mythos was used as truth telling back in the day (though he failed to include any documentary evidence proving this assertion) but now we have "lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, truth, truth, truth"...

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Why do both sets of editors find nothing laudable about ANY northern king?

Quote:I believe the answer to this is rather straight forward. The southern priests in cobbling together the oral traditions simply ascribed the success of the northern kings to their southern counterparts. Thus gave rise to King David and King Solomon as great kings. However archeology shows that in the time they are supposed to have lived their capital was nothing but a small mountain town with not even a wall let alone a great capital of a supposed empire.

Sorry I wasn't more clear before now. I'm going with the theory of South vs. North in documents. Both sets of editors describe every single Northern ruler as an apostate piece of human garbage not fit for being called an Israelite. That didn't add in my thinking.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If the writing was as late as post-exilic times, why did both sides seek conflict with disparaging the other in their writings? Shouldn't they all as israelites seek solidarity as the nation was rebuilt by post-captivity exiles?

Quote:The Northern Kingdom had been conquered by the Assyrians at this point but the Northern Priesthood had not completely disbanded and did hold on to some of the political power. The golden Calf that was the symbol of the northern temple of Yahweh was discredited as a brazen idol during this struggle. But they did retain enough power to forgo a complete whitewashing of the former traditions.

I understand, but I was asking why Jews after a few generations of diaspora would be in-fighting while trying to hang onto the land after the return. I'm also asking why both sets of editors blame the Assyrian diaspora squarely on the sins of the North and both sets the Babylonian captivity on the sins of the South.

(08-10-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *Why do both sets of editors, northern and southern, blame the break between the two on southern kings' apostasies?

Quote:I am going to plead ignorance on this question at the present time. If I have time I will try and find an answer (unless someone else wishes to) and get back to you.

Thanks for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: