Nihilism

[owknows]

Ok, I'm happy to put thus aside, but I am a little confused now on what upset you. We can move past it though.

I'm not upset at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression. This is a precise discussion we're having though, and it requires that for my own sake, I clarify our respective understandings.

For what it's worth... if I didn't hold your opinion in high regard, we wouldn't be having the conversation at all.

I think literal vs suggestive is the wrong description. However, they answer is very easy. Study.

I have a English Standard Version Study Bible that explains things like this. Talks about historical meaning and context. There are tons of example I could give for this.

I tend to rely upon the King James, as it is closer for me, to the Aramaic. And to the degree that I have studied the specifics of translation.. my focus has generally been the words of the Nazarene.

That said.. even the New English Standard says he killed everyone in these Cities... doesn't it?

[NCRAVEN]

I'm not upset at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression. This is a precise discussion we're having though, and it requires that for my own sake, I clarify our respective understandings.

For what it's worth... if I didn't hold your opinion in high regard, we wouldn't be having the conversation at all.

Apologies, upset was probably the wrong word. You had originally said that God commanded people to kill/slaughter children. When I asked for an example you gave Joshua so I took that to mean that was the one you were talking about, but I think you just meant a general command not specific to Joshua as I see you're pointing to sparing those who surrender.

Does that make sense?

I tend to rely upon the King James, as it is closer for me, to the Aramaic. And to the degree that I have studied the specifics of translation.. my focus has generally been the words of the Nazarene.

That said.. even the New English Standard says he killed everyone in these Cities... doesn't it?

I've always had a hard time with the KJV, just reads weird to me.

The ESV does say that. But I think that goes back to the point Copan made that the evidence doesn't suggest families in these areas but military/kings.

[owknows]

Apologies, upset was probably the wrong word. You had originally said that God commanded people to kill/slaughter children. When I asked for an example you gave Joshua so I took that to mean that was the one you were talking about, but I think you just meant a general command not specific to Joshua as I see you're pointing to sparing those who surrender.

To clarify... None of the interpretations of the Bible I have read specifically say that Joshua spared those who surrendered. Quite the opposite in fact. Combatants whole were captured (surrendered during battle) we slaughtered on the point of a sword. As was every inhabitant of their city. Leaving none alive.


As were the kings of several of the City-States who hid in a cave, and were later captured.

They were slaughtered and hung on a tree outside the gates of their cities.

Joshua states that only those who specifically capitulated or cooperated (i.e. those who aided the children of Israel) were spared.

I've always had a hard time with the KJV, just reads weird to me.

The ESV does say that. But I think that goes back to the point Copan made that the evidence doesn't suggest families in these areas but military/kings.

Let's look at the newer translations:

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

Seems pretty clear that Joshua killed every single person who lived in the city of Ai... then burned it to the ground.. then desecrated the body of their king and left it as a marker for all to see.

I don't think there's any way to read that other than how it reads.

[Culex]

Scripture is clear in stating that sin is hereditary because we all come from Adam. It isn't that a baby in the womb has yet to commit sin therefore is innocent. It's moreso that the baby is alive via flesh but its spirit is dead as we are all born spiritually dead because Christ is not yet in us. It's deeper than just action and intent. It's spiritual.

The Book of John hones in on this with Jesus speaking to Nicodemus

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:5*-‬6 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/jhn.3.5-6.ESV

[owknows]

Scripture is clear in stating that sin is hereditary because we all come from Adam. It isn't that a baby in the womb has yet to commit sin therefore is innocent. It's moreso that the baby is alive via flesh but its spirit is dead as we are all born spiritually dead because Christ is not yet in us. It's deeper than just action and intent. It's spiritual.

The Book of John hones in on this with Jesus speaking to Nicodemus

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:5*-‬6 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/jhn.3.5-6.ESV

I'm aware of the dogma of original sin.

I just think it's nonsense.

[Culex]

I'm aware of the dogma of original sin.

I just think it's nonsense.

It really isn't when you understand the bigger picture which most people simply don't because their minds are set on worldly perspectives. This is why NCRAVEN asked you if you were open to adopting a different point of view because most people are set in their ways because that's what they're comfortable with, until it isn't.

[NCRAVEN]

To clarify... None of the interpretations of the Bible I have read specifically say that Joshua spared those who surrendered. Quite the opposite in fact. Combatants whole were captured (surrendered during battle) we slaughtered on the point of a sword. As was every inhabitant of their city. Leaving none alive.


As were the kings of several of the City-States who hid in a cave, and were later captured.

They were slaughtered and hung on a tree outside the gates of their cities.

Joshua states that only those who specifically capitulated or cooperated (i.e. those who aided the children of Israel) were spared.



Let's look at the newer translations:

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

Seems pretty clear that Joshua killed every single person who lived in the city of Ai... then burned it to the ground.. then desecrated the body of their king and left it as a marker for all to see.

I don't think there's any way to read that other than how it reads.

Well I provided some, but what I don't see mentioned is children.

Regarding slaughtering the soldiers and kings, that was pretty common practice during battle in those days, it's not like they had the Genevia convention or anything.

Also, in the article I linked to earlier, did you read what the Canaanites were doing? I'd hardly call them innocent people, they were pretty sick actually.

[Ranger]

As a Christian, I love me some Bible reading, but I had to square with the fact that it is in fact not the infallible word of God. It’s mostly his, almost exclusively but there is some human intervention there.

[NCRAVEN]

As a Christian, I love me some Bible reading, but I had to square with the fact that it is in fact not the infallible word of God. It’s mostly his, almost exclusively but there is some human intervention there.

One thing I keep in mind when reading it is we always convey things from the point of view as an observer.

For example we say the sun rises and the sun sets but we know that’s not so, we say that cause as an observer that’s how it seems.

So while I do think the Bible is at least inspired by God, the messages and stories are given from the observer point of view and sometimes need more investigation instead of taking them at face value.

[Culex]

As a Christian, I love me some Bible reading, but I had to square with the fact that it is in fact not the infallible word of God. It’s mostly his, almost exclusively but there is some human intervention there.

It's Gods intervention with humans.

If Joshuas army wasn't an actual Godly intervention and was thrown in there by that eras victors to justify the act though that's one thing but that's some serious apologetics right there considering how significant that entire book is to Christianity.

[owknows]

As a Christian, I love me some Bible reading, but I had to square with the fact that it is in fact not the infallible word of God. It’s mostly his, almost exclusively but there is some human intervention there.

Sounds like we have general agreement that descriptions in the Bible of actions which would be contrary to the notion of a loving and benevolent God, would likely be man's flawed understanding of that notion creeping into the text.

Is that fair Ranger, NCRAVEN, Culex?

If so, perhaps we can move on to the question that keeps my toe dipped in the agnostic pool.

If the beauty, complexity, and awe inspiring wonder of the universe necessitates a creator... who created the creator?

[Culex]

Sounds like we have general agreement that descriptions in the Bible of actions which would be contrary to the notion of a loving and benevolent God, would likely be man's flawed understanding of that notion creeping into the text.

Is that fair Ranger, NCRAVEN, Culex?

If so, perhaps we can move on to the question that keeps my toe dipped in the agnostic pool.

If the beauty, complexity, and awe inspiring wonder of the universe necessitates a creator... who created the creator?

If you're going to believe in the Bible though it wouldn't be right for us as Christians IMO to just pick and choose the good stuff and take out the controversy for the sake of apologetic especially if it's a book like Joshua which is so significant. If that part wasn't of God, Jesus Himself would have amended it the way he addressed Moses' rules regarding divorce and other matters like working on the sabbath. Jesus essentially put his stamp of approval on the Book of Joshua and Jesus was as benevolent as you could ever describe someone to be.