num (for Christians to answer)

[chuck010342]

It seems my theory is still in demand. Okay I will post it some time in the near near future I promise. Anyway I would like to comment on the fact that I have barely said anything about this yet and all of you start to debate it already I'm loving it. I am busy with college work so reading and posting on this site isn't a prority right now but I'll get to it I promise.

 

[true blood]

No I don`t believe I do, by doing so I would create a style of comprehension that allows me to believe a statement or verse can have almost any meaning I wish it to have depending upon the idiosyncrisies of the translation i`m reading.



If you are reading and comprehending the Bible figuratively as opposed to literally then it has no true meaning and teaches nothing "clearly" because you can attach almost any meaning to any parable to come up with the outcome you like.

The story mentioned above clearly states that God went to harden the Pharoahs heart against Moses` plea before Moses even arrived in Egypt.
As Moses and Aarons pleas started to "soften" the Pharaoh God would then "re-harden" his heart again for no apparent reason other than his own enjoyment at the impasse.

This also gets off the intent of the original thread and I don`t want to discuss it further here.
I will continue in another thread if someone wishes to make one.

Your statements are based off your own understanding. Consider archaeology, how it helps us understand more accurately the nuances and uses of words as they were used in their own time period in every ancienct writings. I live in the West, the bible has an Eastern perspective, it would be ignorance if I tried to view it through a Western perspective and understanding, and you're talking about an Eastern perspective thousands of years ago.

 

[linwood]

Your statements are based off your own understanding.

Yes and thats exactly my point .
Everybodys understanding of this book is based off their own understanding regardless whether it`s correct or not.

Point in case..Mr Emu and I have found that while we both claim to take a literal interpretation of the Bible we more often than not come up with different meanings for the same verse.

Who is right and who is wrong?
Most probably niether of us is wrong since that is the nature of this book.

How many Christian forums have you been in where numerous Christians are all arguing about how they read a simple verse?

I`ve seen many and this is usually because they are using some other reference to help them understand, a reference provided by their particular sect of Christianity of which each has it`s own agenda or belief.

Or a reference from another part of the book itself and since the book is actually a collection of different books written by different authors in different languages at vastly different times it often doesn`t even support itself.

Consider archaeology, how it helps us understand more accurately the nuances and uses of words as they were used in their own time period in every ancienct writings. I live in the West, the bible has an Eastern perspective, it would be ignorance if I tried to view it through a Western perspective and understanding, and you're talking about an Eastern perspective thousands of years ago.

I understand and to some extent agree with what you`re saying but...
To begin with archeology itself has often had to retract previous readings and or translations.
Archeologists had no clue as to what hieroglyphs meant until the discovery of the Rosetta stone.
What the Rosetta stone did for Egyptian archeology was give them one single solid basis in which to translate all the glyphs they found.
It gave them certainty of the meaning of the writing.
The Bible has no Rosetta stone.

In its orginal form the entire book (OT & NT) was written in three entirely different languages Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Each of these languages have their own idiosyncrisies as far as word definition and intent.

These are just the problems with the Bible in it`s most original form.
Lets take a look at what happens when it`s translated by groups who do indeed have their own distinct agendas into a language that is vastly different than any of the original languages.

These are the books that 95% of your typical layman Christian are reading and taking word for word
Often the English word/term s light years away from the intent of its closest counterpart in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or even Greek.

Here is an example of many sects twisting their translation to suit their own needs.

1 Samuel 20:41

KJV
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded."
Amplified Bible
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself."
Living Bible
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more."
Modern Language
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself."
New American Bible
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together."
New Century Version
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most."
Revised English Bible
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's."
Revised Standard Version
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself."

Above taken from....http://www.religioustolerance.org/

While some of the above could be said to be accurate translation of the original Hebrew most are obvious purposeful mistranslations used to cover up the possibilty of Davids bisexuality.

These Christian groups deliberately changed the word of God because it didn`t confrom to their beliefs.
These Christian groups felt they were above their own God or they simply changed the wording because they didn`t feel the layman would understand the word of God.
Either way the word of God leaves alot to be desired.

My original point was when even those who claim to be experts on the intent of this book cannot agree on it`s meaning where does that leave me?

It leaves me to my own understanding as it does you and anyone else who attempts to take anything from the Bible.

 

[chuck010342]

at last the long awaited theory I have about the passage in numbers.

First and foremost we have to take a look at scripture as a whole. We should fist begin by looking at the Book of Genesis where it all startes. Now God created mankind in his own likness and his own image. This means that we as humans have the ability to reason which seperates us from the animals. God did not want us to be like robots to love him only because we are programed to do so. Love is far greater when it comes as a need or a want. God wants us to love him because WE want to not because we are forced to love him. Thats why In the beggining God gave us free choice to choose which destiny we want. The choic is simply follow God or follow your own desiers. Now Adam and Eve didn't follow God they followed Thier own ambition, they took the fruit. Now they screwed everything up thanks to that one act now we have to work by the sweat of our brow and all that bad stuff. (thank God that isn't the end of the story) Now people began to multiply and repoduce and the earth was filled with a evil people who choose evil and did all kinds of things that were evil in the eyes of the lord. So God destroyed all the people on earth. Its not like God abandoned them because he found a rightoues man named Noah. The people laughed and mocked Noah for his building of the ark, noah warned them but they did not listen. So God destroyed the earth with a flood. Now after the flood God but a rainbow in the sky so that God and all the future people could remeber the covenant that God would never agian destroy the world with a flood. Now this is very important with regads to the passage in numbers. You see God has already destroyed a very large group of people. God being Omnipotent and Omniscent realized that in that society whatever the Father did the Son would also likely to do. God saw that people would contiue to be evil so he had to destroy them so that other who wanted to be with God could live in that world. You see the people were not innocent (even the little ones) because they would grow up to be just like thier fathers and nothing would change. The people actually brought upon the disaster themselves because they were Godless. Now I realize that I am skipping a lot of history here but lets go to the exodus.

Now the Midionans were a people of the anceint near east who did alot of bad things, they gave child sarfice, they worshiped other gods they did evil things in the sight of the lord just like the pre blood people. Now God gave them a chance, God didn't destroy them right away God gave them a bunch of chances to repent but it wasn't meant to be so finally God destoyed them but not by flood because he promised never to do that agian but he destroyed them by the sword using the Isrealites. Now a question might arise that "why did God destroy them he allowed them to live there and he gave them the land" That is very true God did allow them the live there but not like the way they did. God allowed the pople of Isreal to take the women as their wives because the unmarried women didn't ally themselves with the midonians with the men and I don't think God would allow an innocnet woman to be hurt like that so God allowed the women to become wives of the isrealites and that is much better then to be a whore for a midioan. Now nowhere does it say in the book of numbers to "RAPE AND PILLAGE" you will not find those words.

Another point I would like to devulge is that God could of destoyed the world agian but he promised Abraham that he wouldn't do that so God had to make a nation that would be his representation on earth. God chose the Hebrews because they were the least amoung the various people after the fall of the tower of babel. This is all part of the master plan, now God had to make Isreal into a nation with its own land so he Chose Palastein. Why did God choose this? because it is pretty close to the center of the world and the people living there were not doing the job correctly. The amorites the hisiites the midonians, were godless people just like those of the preflood who did evil in the eyes of the lord so the people were doing great evil so God destroyed them and thier children. Remember this was a long time ago in a different social system with different social behaviors and a child will be just like his father when he grows up so nobody is innocent. God destoryes them using the Isrealites to make a "light amoung nations" of course that didn't really happen but that is a different discussion for a different day.

The main message for this passage in numbers is DON'T MAKE GOD ANGRY. Now I will open up the floor for any questions regarding my theory. Sorry for it being so long

 

[linwood]

at last the long awaited theory I have about the passage in numbers.
So God destroyed all the people on earth. Its not like God abandoned them because he found a rightoues man named Noah.

So..every single sentient being on the planet at that time was evil.
Every babe, every child, every mentally impaired person, every person living in lands far away who had never heard the word of God.
They were all intrinsically evil.
All but those 8 on the Ark

Ok..I`m following ya.

Now after the flood God but a rainbow in the sky so that God and all the future people could remeber the covenant that God would never agian destroy the world with a flood.

Well there were rainbows before that.
Genesis says there was mist and rain and sun so there had to be rainbows before that.

God being Omnipotent and Omniscent realized that in that society whatever the Father did the Son would also likely to do.

God was wrong, I`m proof.
I share not one bit of the beliefs of my ancestors.
I`m raising a boy who shares not a bit of what I believe.
Aren`t there also references to this in the bible?

You see the people were not innocent (even the little ones) because they would grow up to be just like thier fathers and nothing would change. The people actually brought upon the disaster themselves because they were Godless.

They weren`t godless they simply worshipped a different God.
The Hebrew God didn`t like this much and said so.
The Hebrew God has also said that a child should not be punished for the sins of it`s fathers.
The Hebrew God isn`t big on consistency.
If we followed this ideology today we`d be aborting the children of convicted criminals.
Should the infant of a man who ate shellfish have been stoned to death among the ancient Israelites?

Now the Midionans were a people of the anceint near east who did alot of bad things, they gave child sarfice, they worshiped other gods...

I thought you just said they were godless.

God allowed the pople of Isreal to take the women as their wives because the unmarried women didn't ally themselves with the midonians with the men and I don't think God would allow an innocnet woman to be hurt like that ....

The infant boys had allied themselves with the Midianites?
God prefers innocent girls to innocent boys?
I thought all women were born with original sin upon them.
If thats the case they were actually less innocent than the boys.

...so God allowed the women to become wives of the isrealites and that is much better then to be a whore for a midioan.

I dunno about you but if I were a woman I`d much rather be a whore for anyone than the forced wife of the man I witnessed brutally slaughtering my entire family and burning my home to the ground.
Do you really think a woman could consent to sex with such a man ..in her heart?

Now nowhere does it say in the book of numbers to "RAPE AND PILLAGE" you will not find those words.

I don`t need to, I can find their definitions.


rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.


As rape is concernd do you think that all 30,000 virgins taken from Midia in the midst of this slaughter willingly copulated with those they witnessed brutally killing their families?
Do you really think that on their "wedding night" ( if they even bothered with those particulars) these women awaited the arrival of their new loving husband to the wedding bed with bated breath?
Do you think they were overjoyed and filled with desire once he arrived?
Do you believe they were overcome with the undying love of their beautiful heavenly bond the moment he entered her?

I don`t and thats rape.

pil·lage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plj)
v. pil·laged, pil·lag·ing, pil·lag·es
v. tr.

1. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.
2. To take as spoils.

I`m sure you`ll agree Israel pillaged Midia.
Numbers goes into a long equation to figure out how to distribute the spoils.
The virgin girls themselves were "pillaged"
The herds were "pillaged"
The food was "pillaged".
The whole place was "pillaged"

Remember this was a long time ago in a different social system with different social behaviors and a child will be just like his father when he grows up so nobody is innocent.

Again, this is presumption and one that you cannot find evidence for.
You`re telling me that back in the ancient mid-east not child ever grew up to believe other than his parents?

Can you not find an example of this in the Bible itself?
Wasn`t Moses himself raised in the Pharoahs house?
He obviously didn`t agree with his fathers ways.

What you`re doing is attempting to justify murder rape and genocide.

Even if it is just a myth the justification of it is well..reprehensible by todays standards.

 

[thomasedison]

Now Adam and Eve didn't follow God they followed Thier own ambition, they took the fruit. Now they screwed everything up thanks to that one act now we have to work by the sweat of our brow and all that bad stuff.

Actually it is right that we work to live and not bad stuff. To live one should have earned it. That is in fact the principle of justice. It is wrong to accept the unearned and the undeserved.


You said that love is more that simple obeisance or following as if we are programmed to do so. But if we don't have the knowledge of good and evil, what would we be except programmed robots? Robots who can't even decide what to do and what not to do, what is moral and what is immoral? You can't blame them for eating the fruit which infact made a Man truly a Man i.e. a rational being.

The main message for this passage in numbers is DON'T MAKE GOD ANGRY. Now I will open up the floor for any questions regarding my theory.

If the only reason for following God and/or being moral is fear then a person might as well not be. Morality is not something to be obeyed in blind fear. It is something to be understood. Even if God exists, It is impossible that he punishes people for angering him or not following him. Only murderers and criminals who work by brute force do that.


BTW, Why should Son pay for Father. If God already knew what we would become, then wence come our free will?

 

[chuck010342]

Actually it is right that we work to live and not bad stuff. To live one should have earned it. That is in fact the principle of justice. It is wrong to accept the unearned and the undeserved.


You said that love is more that simple obeisance or following as if we are programmed to do so. But if we don't have the knowledge of good and evil, what would we be except programmed robots? Robots who can't even decide what to do and what not to do, what is moral and what is immoral? You can't blame them for eating the fruit which infact made a Man truly a Man i.e. a rational being.

Man was a ration being before they ate the fruit Adam named the animals didn't he?
you don't need the knowledge of Good and evil in order not to be robots. Robots cannot decide for themselves what they should do, robots only do what we program them to do unlike what God did for us.

If the only reason for following God and/or being moral is fear then a person might as well not be. Morality is not something to be obeyed in blind fear. It is something to be understood. Even if God exists, It is impossible that he punishes people for angering him or not following him. Only murderers and criminals who work by brute force do that.

who said it was the only reason?

BTW, Why should Son pay for Father. If God already knew what we would become, then wence come our free will?

this is off topic please contact me if you want to discuss freewill and the omniscient, omnipotence of God

 

[thomasedison]

Man was a ration being before they ate the fruit Adam named the animals didn't he?
you don't need the knowledge of Good and evil in order not to be robots. Robots cannot decide for themselves what they should do, robots only do what we program them to do unlike what God did for us.

Rational means able to figure out what is right and what is wrong on the basis of reason. Before the fall, how was man different from animals except for the structure. The thing that makes us different from animals is that we are able to know what is right or wrong, what is good and evil. Now when man didn't even know what was good and evil, how can could he know that it was evil and wrong to take the fruit from the tree? How could he know that killing someone was wrong. How could he know anything was good or evil? You can't blame man for whatever he did. Atleast now we know what is right and what is wrong and we can act according to that. In the days before the fall, Adam could have been Osama Bin Laden mass murdering the animals, killing Eve, destroying the beauty of Eden and you couldn't blame because he did not know the right and the wrong, the good and the evil.

who said it was the only reason?

What is it then? The only reason I have encountered religious people give (no offence to them) that a person will go to Hell if he does not follow God. If that is not fear then what it is? I may be wrong and I may have encountered the wrong people who do not know the correct reason. Please correct me if I am wrong.

this is off topic please contact me if you want to discuss freewill and the omniscient, omnipotence of God

Well, one thing people say is that God already knows what you are going to decide. Which means that everything we do, God already knows. Which means that we have no power to change it. It leads to the fact that whatever we do is predestined. Then how can we have free will with God being omnipotent and omniscient? But it could be because I am a bit biased against the idea. I would be glad if you could provide your reasons.

 

[true blood]

There is one simple principle: God's foreknowledge precedes predestination. In order to understand Biblical prophecy and fulfillment you have to understand that.

You also should know that God perceives all time and all eternity as one overall picture rather then a series of events. Kinda like compared to an eagle's view soaring above the terrain, an eagle is able to see the cat chasing the mouse, the deer crossing the steam, the car driving down the road - all at once. However man's viewpoint is basicly sequential. Thus in God's omniscience, the past, the present, and the future are all equal realities. He sees the future as if it was happening in the present-kinda hard to explain because he does not necessarily directly cause an event of the future to take place and he will never overstep man's free will, rather looking ahead he can see what choice will be made and therefore pronounce that it will be so. Example: You know that some guests will be coming to visit and stay the night (foreknowledge), you prepare a room for them (predestination) You do not possess them or force them to stay but knowing that they will want to stay the night, you can tell othes and make the necessary arrangements ahead of time. Likewise God's foreknowledge does not possess or force people into action in conformitty with his will. He has complete foreknowledge of what people will choose by their own volition. Need to understand this in order to see how the prophecies are fullfilled.

 

[splitfangr06]

It says in the Bible to not take revenge on others, but the revenge will be Gods. God has diffrent ways of exploiting this revenge he was using Moses as a weapon against the Midanites. Moses also may have thought that God spoke to him, the Bible does not say that God spoke to him directly. He could have been mad at the Midanites for worshiping pagan gods. Moses could have been misled by his emotions.

 

[chuck010342]

Well there were rainbows before that.
Genesis says there was mist and rain and sun so there had to be rainbows before that.

really? I don't know that much about rainbows perhaps you could tell me more you seem really smart.

God was wrong, I`m proof.
I share not one bit of the beliefs of my ancestors.
I`m raising a boy who shares not a bit of what I believe.
Aren`t there also references to this in the bible?

are you a midonian?
did you live during the time of the exodus?
are you hebrew?
yeah there are but not in numbers, not any I now of anyway

They weren`t godless they simply worshipped a different God.
The Hebrew God didn`t like this much and said so.
The Hebrew God has also said that a child should not be punished for the sins of it`s fathers.
The Hebrew God isn`t big on consistency.
If we followed this ideology today we`d be aborting the children of convicted criminals.
Should the infant of a man who ate shellfish have been stoned to death among the ancient Israelites?

Worshipping another God is godless because there is only one GOd
did God say that in the book of numbers?
yes God is
God doesn't want us to follow this ideology today
NO the infant shouldn't that is not found in the law. At least in my understanding of it

The infant boys had allied themselves with the Midianites?
God prefers innocent girls to innocent boys?
I thought all women were born with original sin upon them.
If thats the case they were actually less innocent than the boys.

you didn't understand my point about that the infants were not innocent
The women were less accountable because they didn't marry a man yet
men and women are born with orignal sin

I dunno about you but if I were a woman I`d much rather be a whore for anyone than the forced wife of the man I witnessed brutally slaughtering my entire family and burning my home to the ground.
Do you really think a woman could consent to sex with such a man ..in her heart?

The women are not forced to be the wives forever according to the law a man can divorce his wife if he displeases him. The unmarried women are allowed to live. An unmarried woman during this time had more rights under the jewish law then in any other civilazation I know of.
The woman who was taken into captivitiy could of not pleased her husband and would of had to be let go according to the law

I don`t need to, I can find their definitions.


rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.


As rape is concernd do you think that all 30,000 virgins taken from Midia in the midst of this slaughter willingly copulated with those they witnessed brutally killing their families?
Do you really think that on their "wedding night" ( if they even bothered with those particulars) these women awaited the arrival of their new loving husband to the wedding bed with bated breath?
Do you think they were overjoyed and filled with desire once he arrived?
Do you believe they were overcome with the undying love of their beautiful heavenly bond the moment he entered her?

I don`t and thats rape.

pil·lage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plj)
v. pil·laged, pil·lag·ing, pil·lag·es
v. tr.

1. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.
2. To take as spoils.

I`m sure you`ll agree Israel pillaged Midia.
Numbers goes into a long equation to figure out how to distribute the spoils.
The virgin girls themselves were "pillaged"
The herds were "pillaged"
The food was "pillaged".
The whole place was "pillaged"

hmm then I guess it was a rape but not in the context I was thinking of

Does the book of numbers say how many women were taken?

The book of numbers doesn't say that the Hebrews could force to have sex with their wives. It says that the hebrews could take the midonians as wives. The woman could of displeased the husband in many was and the husband was bound by the law to let the women go.

Now as for the pilliging This was agianst what God wanted he said only to destroy the midionas completely not the pillage them. God was very angry when the pillaging occured.

Again, this is presumption and one that you cannot find evidence for.
You`re telling me that back in the ancient mid-east not child ever grew up to believe other than his parents?

Can you not find an example of this in the Bible itself?
Wasn`t Moses himself raised in the Pharoahs house?
He obviously didn`t agree with his fathers ways.

What you`re doing is attempting to justify murder rape and genocide.

Even if it is just a myth the justification of it is well..reprehensible by todays standards.

This is true and the bible is my evidence

no what I am proposing as my theory is that the Midonians didn't and I belive that most others behaved in similar ways

Moses father was hebrew.
He was raised in Pharos house
I don't know Moses father so I can't tell you if Moses agreed with him or not
what I'm doing is giving a theory about a difficult passage in the book of numbers.
and it is not a myth and Todays standards are not to be accounted here. This happened along time ago when things were much different

 

[michel]

If God is righteous then why did he allow moses to kill the midoneans and slaughter thier children and take the unmarried for themsleves? I'm talking about the book of numbers chapter 31

Hi Chuck, very good question.

When God led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, He was leading them into very hostile territory. The Canaanites were very adept at warfare, and the Israelites were not. Thus God gave them specific instructions at specific times.

One major type of warfare is called Germ Warfare. What a nation would do, and this sounds morbid, is that they would take their sick people, dying of venereal disease, AIDS, or other highly-contagious diseases, and put them within strike range, hoping they would be captured, and thus become diseased themselves.

So God, in advance, told Moses not to take any hostages, save the women who had not had any type of relationship with a man. Even the animals were infected.

King David would overlook this stratagem may years later and pay for it with his life.