Violence in Christianity and Judaism?

[1robin]

Scary message. I am always startled to hear people reciting the history of war-winners as if it is honest truth.

The Israelites wanted Canaan so they slaughtered the Canaanites and took their land. Then they wrote history books claiming that their enemies sacrified their own children, etc.

I thought you said you had an interest in history?

I do, that is exactly why I did what anyone who challenges this did not do. I read secular historical texts on warfare in OT times. I even stated that in my post to avoid this particular waste of time. It is well known to secular archeology that the Canaanites walled up live children in their foundations and forced them to walk through fire for their false God's. I can give you the authors of the many works I have read if you wish but I doubt you will read them as I have. The Bible is used as a primary source in even secular archeology because it is consistent with history and even corrects misunderstandings historians have held at times. Museums are currently full of artifacts from tribes the Bible said existed and the scholars said never existed. Of course there is a tendency for the victors to revise history to make their point of view look better and that is exactly what Muslim's do but then suggest the Bible scholars can't. However it isn't that clear. The Bible is well known to be self deprecating and devoid of all the markers of mythology. They did not say the Canaanites had done anything terrible to the Hebrew's as they would have if making up a story. They said God had judged them after years of working with them. History records their depravity. The OT also records failure after failure militarily of the Hebrews and subscribes the reasons to their committing the most horrible sins possible. Not what stories invented later by the victorious normally do? It is called the principle of embarrassment as is used by all scholars and lawyers to indicate objective accuracy. The only problem we have with the Bible is not that the Canaanites were evil but whether God's orders were literal or apocalyptic. Either way not that many Canaanites were killed. They appear time and again in the narratives, same with virtually all the other tribes they fought. In short all the factors used to indicate reliably history instead of propaganda of the victorious are on the Bibles side and secular history and archeology backs it up.BTW the Israelites did not want Canaan they wanted to go back to Egypt and they were even punished by God for refusing to go and take Canaan. So far there was not a single fact in your post. Not to mention the Hebrews had lived in Canaan and many had never left. It was given to Abraham hundreds of years before all this.

 

[darkendless]

There is nothing peaceful about either of the big 3.

There is too much concern with being better and "the truth" that people seem to do everything to feel superiority.

Stereotypically the big three are very childish as organisations (taking away those that are exceptions to the rule).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Bible is used as a primary source in even secular archeology because it is consistent with history....

Sure. And if we read Arthur Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens, we can do secular archeology in London. It's amazing how many details those writers got right. They must have been supernaturally guided to have written so consistently with history, is what I think.

The Bible is well known to be self deprecating and devoid of all the markers of mythology.

Sure. And the Bible is well-known to be full of itself and 99% fiction.

It's easy for things to be well-known.

They did not say the Canaanites had done anything terrible to the Hebrew's as they would have if making up a story. They said God had judged them after years of working with them. History records their depravity.

Jewish history records their depravity. And Roman history records Carthaginian depravity. And so it goes.

The OT also records failure after failure militarily of the Hebrews and subscribes the reasons to their committing the most horrible sins possible. Not what stories invented later by the victorious normally do?

The Bible is a theological text, 1robin. If you think it's a history book, it is small wonder that you hold the views which you hold.

Have you never heard of the stereotypical Jewish mother and her fun with guilt trips? Do you know how various Jews have blamed themselves for the Holocaust? Guilt seems to afflict many Jews just as it afflicts many Christians.

We are awful people! We don't deserve God's love or salvation! We are failing as a nation because we are corrupted by abortion and homosexuality and illegal immigration!

It's typical psychology for primitive Abrahamics... and even for some modern ones. Many sinners love to kick themselves in public.

Either way not that many Canaanites were killed.

Yikes. Whole cities were slaughtered, down to the dogs. Not that many Canaantes?

I think I would not like to find myself in a history classroom with Mr. 1robin as the teacher. There seems to be a bit of bias. Sorry.

In short all the factors used to indicate reliably history instead of propaganda of the victorious are on the Bibles side and secular history and archeology backs it up.

Believe what you need to believe. It's curious to me that you feel such a need to assert such things again and again and again. Even if they weren't contrary to scholarship, I would find it curious that you repeat them so often. Who are you trying to convince?

BTW the Israelites did not want Canaan they wanted to go back to Egypt and they were even punished by God for refusing to go and take Canaan. So far there was not a single fact in your post.

Who told you this fact -- that 'the Israelites' wanted to go back to Egypt?

Not to mention the Hebrews had lived in Canaan and many had never left. It was given to Abraham hundreds of years before all this.

More historical fact. Goodness.

 

[1robin]

Sure. And if we read Arthur Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens, we can do secular archeology in London. It's amazing how many details those writers got right. They must have been supernaturally guided to have written so consistently with history, is what I think.

That was never the point Lord Amguosity. I did not claim that God exists because the Bible is historically right. I argued that the Bible is historically reliable because it is historically accurate in levels and amounts that virtually no other book can touch.

Sure. And the Bible is well-known to be full of itself and 99% fiction.

Not by the majority of NT scholars on both sides. In fact not a majority of people.

It's easy for things to be well-known.

Not surprisingly you miss the whole point. There are specific markers used by textual scholars to identify the reliability of manuscripts. The Bible passes them all and no it is not easy.

Jewish history records their depravity. And Roman history records Carthaginian depravity. And so it goes.

Once again not what I said. I said secular history records it.

The Bible is a theological text, 1robin. If you think it's a history book, it is small wonder that you hold the views which you hold.

The Bible has 25,000 historical corroborations, has made a mockery of secular archeology time and again, even predicted complex events long in the future with alarming detail. No bad for a spiritual book.

Have you never heard of the stereotypical Jewish mother and her fun with guilt trips? Do you know how various Jews have blamed themselves for the Holocaust? Guilt seems to afflict many Jews just as it afflicts many Christians.

That has nothing to do with the academic markers and methods used to determine authenticity and it was very silly.

We are awful people! We don't deserve God's love or salvation! We are failing as a nation because we are corrupted by abortion and homosexuality and illegal immigration!

I agree with that if you mean the US but I have no idea what that has to do with anything in this discussion.

It's typical psychology for primitive Abrahamics... and even for some modern ones. Many sinners love to kick themselves in public.

Come off it man. Trying to get rid of an academic requirement that a book you do not like passed with flying colors by claiming people over the course of 2000 years are naturally self-loathing is absurd and meaningless.

Yikes. Whole cities were slaughtered, down to the dogs. Not that many Canaanites?

The facts (not stuff you made up) is that the Canaanites are constantly in the middle of all types of Bible stories long after they were to have been wiped out. The same with most of the others groups. It is called apocalyptic literature. Look it up.

I think I would not like to find myself in a history classroom with Mr. 1robin as the teacher. There seems to be a bit of bias. Sorry.

Yeah, I am biased toward the truth. Forgive me as you probably find that unpleasant and inconvenient. You have yet to show a single thing I claimed incorrect in the least detail. Since you are unable to do so I will give you a story that is bad and has no defense I am aware of. Look up the children, the bears, and the bald prophet. That one is truly awful and nothing can redeem it. I would use that instead of well researched OT wars which you did not understand and scholastic textual practices that seem to confuse you, no end.

Believe what you need to believe. It's curious to me that you feel such a need to assert such things again and again and again. Even if they weren't contrary to scholarship, I would find it curious that you repeat them so often. Who are you trying to convince?

The hubris of the impotent. Nothing screams insecurity louder than claims of victories that never existed. It reminds me of the “glorious” Islamic armies that periodically launch themselves on a 100 – 1 underdog named Israel. They come limping out of Israel with everything they own shot up and on fire and yell victory. Too many victories like theirs and yours and there will be no need for me or the Jews to contend with anything (feeble though it is).

Who told you this fact -- that 'the Israelites' wanted to go back to Egypt?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with a little book we call the Bible. You know the one that we are discussing, yes, no? Even for you this statement of yours reveals an ignorance that is appalling.

When they reached the edge of Canaan, they were dismayed to see that the land was already occupied and well protected. Discouraged, the Israelites began to doubt Moses' and God's promise. "Why should the Lord bring us to this land to die in battle? Returning to Egypt would be better than this!" The Israelites' lack of faith greatly angered God. As punishment, God refused to let the Israelites into Canaan, and they were forced to live in the wilderness for 40 years.
http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/AncientEgyptNearEastUnit/OriginsofIsraelites.html
New International Version (©2011)

The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death."
Origins of Judaism - History of the Ancient Israelites

More historical fact. Goodness.

Yep, no wonder it is lost on you.
"Leave your own country...and go to a country that I will show you." Abram obeyed God, and at the age of 75 led his family west into the land of Canaan.
Abram and his family settled in Canaan, but a severe lack of food, or famine, forced them to leave the land and live in Egypt for a short time.
http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/AncientEgyptNearEastUnit/OriginsofIsraelites.html
This was 400 years prior to the events that we are discussing. The Hebrews had lived there the whole time in between. The Canaanites had not.


You appear to be well out of you depth. I can humor you in other less obvious issues but this one may be a little much for you and I will not respond to claims as absurd as 2000 year long cultural loathing anymore.

Do you honestly feel comfortable making the most important decisions in a Human's life based on stuff like what you posted here? Your level of argumentation is self compomising.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That was never the point Lord Amguosity. I did not claim that God exists because the Bible is historically right. I argued that the Bible is historically reliable because it is historically accurate in levels and amounts that virtually no other book can touch.

Sure. Snakes and donkeys talked; a guy lived in a sea creature's belly for three days; and dead people were brought back to life. If you take that stuff as historical, then I think you and I must have different definitions of 'historical.'

Whatever.

There are specific markers used by textual scholars to identify the reliability of manuscripts. The Bible passes them all and no it is not easy.

Nonsense. You really need to brush up on Biblical history. Even the History Channel is hedging in all sorts of directions these days. Moses didn't actually part the Red Sea. Maybe he just waited for easterly winds to dry the Reed Sea enough for his people to cross. The flames by night and the smoke by day were not supernaturally sent from God but rather standard procedure for marching columns. Etc....

Obviously there was no worldwide flood. Obviously the sun did not stand still so Joshua could finish his slaughtering. So why do you claim that the Bible is historical?

The Bible has 25,000 historical corroborations....

I always giggle when you say stull like that. Yikes.

Anyway, The Hound of the Baskervilles has 26,500 historical corroborations, and A Tale of Two Cities has 32,426 of them, so....

That has nothing to do with the academic markers and methods used to determine authenticity and it was very silly.

Ouch! That hurts -- that 'silly' business. If you loved me, you wouldn't say stuff like that, is what I think.

Yeah, I am biased toward the truth. Forgive me as you probably find that unpleasant and inconvenient.

Yeah. 1robin knows the truth, but I don't. That is indeed a very unpleasant thought.

Since you are unable to do so I will give you a story that is bad and has no defense I am aware of. Look up the children, the bears, and the bald prophet. That one is truly awful and nothing can redeem it. I would use that instead of well researched OT wars which you did not understand and scholastic textual practices that seem to confuse you, no end.

I grew up on the Bible. I wouldn't be surprised if I know it better than you do.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with a little book we call the Bible. You know the one that we are discussing, yes, no? Even for you this statement of yours reveals an ignorance that is appalling.

When they reached the edge of Canaan, they were dismayed to see that the land was already occupied and well protected. Discouraged, the Israelites began to doubt Moses' and God's promise. "Why should the Lord bring us to this land to die in battle? Returning to Egypt would be better than this!" The Israelites' lack of faith greatly angered God. As punishment, God refused to let the Israelites into Canaan, and they were forced to live in the wilderness for 40 years.

Origins of Judaism - History of the Ancient Israelites

New International Version (©2011)

As I say, I probably know the Bible better than you do. What intrigues me is that you seem to seriously see the self-promoting mythology/theology of an ancient, primitive people as 'historical.'

You appear to be well out of you depth.

Yeah. I am ignorant putty in your hands. Pity me a little, willya?

Do you honestly feel comfortable making the most important decisions in a Human's life based on stuff like what you posted here? Your level of argumentation is self compomising.

I don't share your theology. Sorry. I have no belief in an afterlife for surviving souls or any of the other theology which you push here.

For I am biased for the truth!

(Sorry if you find that unpleasant and inconvenient, but I felt moved to say it.)

 

[1robin]

Sure. Snakes and donkeys talked; a guy lived in a sea creature's belly for three days; and dead people were brought back to life. If you take that stuff as historical, then I think you and I must have different definitions of 'historical.'

Are you doing this on purpose? My particular claim was only that the Bible when corroboration is possible has been extraordinarily accurate. I did not use it for donkeys, Jonah or any of these other exit ramps you took. However being that we are potentially talking about the creator of the universe, a talking Donkey is hardly a challenge.

Whatever.

No, whatever is what you turn clear and specific claims into.

Nonsense. You really need to brush up on Biblical history. Even the History Channel is hedging in all sorts of directions these days. Moses didn't actually part the Red Sea. Maybe he just waited for easterly winds to dry the Reed Sea enough for his people to cross. The flames by night and the smoke by day were not supernaturally sent from God but rather standard procedure for marching columns. Etc....

You are talking about a completely different subject and by this time it must be intentional. If you actually want to address what the original context was you let me know.

Obviously there was no worldwide flood. Obviously the sun did not stand still so Joshua could finish his slaughtering. So why do you claim that the Bible is historical?

Like I said let me know.

I always giggle when you say stull like that. Yikes.

I imagine you giggle for many arbitrary reasons.

Anyway, The Hound of the Baskervilles has 26,500 historical corroborations, and A Tale of Two Cities has 32,426 of them, so....

When either one of those books is relevant to anything we are discussing (in this particular case, at one time it, was OT warfare you let me know). The Hound of the Baskervilles for one was claimed to be fiction by its writer and concerned a demonic hound not the Israelites flight from Egypt. I can't believe that must be pointed out. Neither one of those is about events over 3000 years ago either. What a waste of energy. Who is it that has calculated the corroborations in those books by the way and why? If you appear before God and he wishes to know why you wasted the years he gave you do you think these books will be an adequite defense? If this was any other issue this would be hilarious, it's just sad for this one.

Ouch! That hurts -- that 'silly' business. If you loved me, you wouldn't say stuff like that, is what I think.

I certainly do not love how you distort my simple claims.

Yeah. 1robin knows the truth, but I don't. That is indeed a very unpleasant thought.

I do not imagine it will keep you up much as I think it trivial in your thought process.

I grew up on the Bible. I wouldn't be surprised if I know it better than you do.

Apparently not, at least within a single topic being discussed. You did not know the Hebrews wished to go back home instead of attacking the Canaanites. Which if you remember to your pre-obscuration efforts was the actual issue.

As I say, I probably know the Bible better than you do. What intrigues me is that you seem to seriously see the self-promoting mythology/theology of an ancient, primitive people as 'historical.'

Is there anything relevant or consequential in this entire post?

I don't share your theology. Sorry. I have no belief in an afterlife for surviving souls or any of the other theology which you push here.

For I am biased for the truth!
(Sorry if you find that unpleasant and inconvenient, but I felt moved to say it.)

I do not find it inconvenient in the least, I find it predicted by the very book you deny. Fortunately your denials have nothing to do with the issue. However they do seem to have everything to do with your claims. Preference is a sorry argument. I have demonstrated that the OT accounts are accurate in the case of the Canaanites in every respect I mentioned. The records are slight but everything that exists confirms my claims. Since I am not following where you are taking this discussion, my point stands and my job appears finished. However feel free to mention more entire lists of things I never mentioned and for which you have no proof but unending preference.


The Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping to identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah 20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:37); Horam of Gazer (Joshua 10:33); Hazar (Joshua 15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis 15:20). The biblical record, unlike other “scriptures,” is historically set, opening itself up for testing and verification.
Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other “religious” document comes even close.
The 19th-century critics used to deny the historicity of the Hittites, the Horites, the Edomites, and various other peoples, nations, and cities mentioned in the Bible. Those critics have long been silenced by the archaeologist’s spade, and few critics dare to question the geographical and ethnological reliability of the Bible.
The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.
http://www.icr.org/bible-history/