> Do you still say there’s nothing immoral in the bible?

Oh, there's plenty of immorality in the Bible, but God isn't guilty of it.

> What about the time god killed everyone on earth with a flood because he didn’t like how things were going?

Here's another place where it would be helpful if you knew something about the Bible and had done some research, which hasn't seemed to be the case in our discussion. You seem to mostly cherry pick and target shoot without any knowledge of the text or context.

Hyperbole was characteristic of ancient writing. There's nothing about a global flood that makes sense, either theologically, biblically, or even scientifically. There's every reason to take the text hyperbolically. In other words, it wasn't a global flood, but rather a catastrophic local one that is recorded hyperbolically as a global flood.

For instance (since you'll no doubt accuse me of gerrymandering the text):

[list][*] In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.
[*] Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.
[*] Another example is from Exodus. In Ex. 9.6 we learn that the plague on livestock killed "all" of the Egyptian livestock. Or did it? In the very next plague, the animals get the boils too. But aren't they all dead? Nope. [/list]

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global". We have to take "all" in context and figure out what the author meant by it. In this case, it's hyperbole to make a theological point.

> Or the time he took all the first born sons of Egypt?

More hyperbole. You just gotta know the Bible. Here's part of my case:

[list]1. We learned from previous plagues that "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all." In the first plague (blood, Ex. 7.20), Moses turns "all" the water in Egypt to blood. Then we read the Egyptian magicians mimicked it (7.22). How could they turn water to blood if all the water already was blood? "All" doesn't necessarily mean "all."
2. In the 5th plague, "all" the animals of Egypt die (9.6), and then in the 6th plague "all" the animals of Egypt broke out in boils (9.10). How is this possible if ALL of the animals are already dead? Then a plague of hail killed all the animals out in the field (9.19). We come to understand that "all" is a kind of category showing tragedy but not ultimate completeness. From that we take that very possibly not "all" of the firstborn of Egypt died, but those in a category to do the particular job so well that the word "all" was used.
3. It says sons, not all children.
4. It would have been the sons of government officials, military leaders, and priests of the nation. They were the perpetrators of the crime.
5. The text (Ex. 12.30) says, "there was not a house without someone dead." Obvious hyperbole. Not every house had first-borns in it.[/list]

> Or the time he murdered the Egyptian army in the Red Sea?

Yep, no problem here. Self-defense is not immoral, especially in military action.

> Or the entire Book of Job?

Job is a philosophical/theological treatise. It's not historical. We can talk about that more if you want. I can give you my case, and then you can respond with yours.

> Or that he condoned slavery?

The Bible never condones slavery. It accommodates it, but never condones. In another sense, however (something you probably don't know because of a lack of research), slavery in ancient Israel was mostly debt slavery and corvee labor. Again, our mindset thinks of the chattel slavery of ancient Greece and Rome and the US antebellum South. Those are vastly different things than servitude in ancient Israel. We can talk about it as you like, but it's too much to post here with everything else.

> Or, what about the time he forced a human person to be tortured and murdered to forgive me for a sin I did not commit?

You're talking about Jesus, I presume. There was no forcing. The Bible is very clear that Jesus went willingly. And it's rather presumptuous of you to think it was for something you didn't commit.

> Do you still say there’s nothing immoral in the bible?

All of your assumptions and accusations fail on examination. Every single one. You're left with an empty hand, but obviously still vituperate in your condemnation of God. It's from your heart, not from the evidence of the Bible.

> The Bible is accused of so many morally repugnant things because, as I have shown, it is misinterpreted and distorted.

What about the time god killed everyone on earth with a flood because he didn’t like how things were going? Or the time he took all the first born sons of Egypt? Or the time he murdered the Egyptian army in the Red Sea? Or the entire Book of Job? Or that he condoned slavery? Or, what about the time he forced a human person to be tortured and murdered to forgive me for a sin I did not commit?

Do you still say there’s nothing immoral in the bible?

> You are literally professing an interpretation that is not in the text, and then saying it’s false if someone else does it. Wow.

Astounding is right. The text says ZERO about sexual slavery. It says (Num. 31.18), "But save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Let's examine it.

"But" : simple conjunction, denoting a change from a previous statement, in this case the previous verse: "Kill every woman who has slept with a man." The point here is to kill the guilty ones but to spare the innocent ones. Again, because of ancient Near Eastern warfare rhetoric, we know this doesn't literally mean "kill every non-virgin." Instead, it means to kill the perpetrators of the crime. How would they know? Duh—they know which women seduced them. They know which women trained them in idolatry and got them to betray YHWH. This was not hard to separate the sheep from the goats.

"Save": The Hebrew word hachayu, Hiphil imperative of chayah, meaning "life." It means "You shall keep alive." It has nothing to do with sex when it says "save them." It's the contrast to "kill" from the previous verse.

"For yourselves." Again, it's fascinating that you assume sex in this very neutral and innocuous expression. In a cherem situation, which this was, it means all plunder, including POWs, were considered to be the possession of God, was for the praise of His name and the benefit of the community. There is NOTHING in this expression suggesting sex.

"Every girl." The terms are [i]bannahshim hattaph[/i]. The primary meaning is human beings from the age of 0-20 with stress on the younger ages (see Num. 14.29-31). A similar root ('olel) stresses infancy. It is often used in Scripture of those too young to know right from wrong or good from evil (Dt. 1.39; 2 Chr. 20.13; 31.18) or females too young to have had sex, i.e., before menarche. It is often translated as "little children."

How is it that I'm "literally professing an interpretation that is not in the text"? Now it's up to you to show me that sexual slavery IS in the text. Your turn. We'll see who's case is stronger.

> But when it says “keep the virgins for yourself,” you are not too interested in what that would have meant to people in the place at that time

Not true at all. I am definitely interested in what it meant to people in that place at that time.

> Because history is quite clear about what happened to virgin (and not virgin) women whose people lost a battle or war.

Certainly, in other cultures. But the burden of proof is on you to show me that was part of the Israelite culture. I'll be glad to read your evidence.

> Your interpretation techniques seem to depend entirely on the result you want.

Not true at all. I'm actually convinced it's the other way around. Let's see your evidence to show me that YOUR interpretation is not just what you want to see.

You are literally professing an interpretation that is not in the text, and then saying it’s false if someone else does it. Wow.

So to understand “kill ‘em all,” we have to look at what that phrase meant to people in that place at that time. But when it says “keep the virgins for yourself,” you are not too interested in what that would have meant to people in the place at that time. Because history is quite clear about what happened to virgin (and not virgin) women whose people lost a battle or war. Your interpretation techniques seem to depend entirely on the result you want.

> But the Bible doesn’t say to spare and “keep for yourself” the people who were not part of the original crime

Of course it does, but what I find interesting is that you seemingly easily and automatically assume (without warrant, I would say) that "keep for yourself" is talking about sex slavery. Like, where does THAT come from, except OUR culture that reads sex into just about everything.

There is absolutely nothing in the language implying sexual pleasure. We read in Dt. 21.10-14 (in total contrast to what a previous poster was claiming) that it was against the Law of Moses for a female POW to be used as a sex object. An Israelite male had to carefully follow proper procedures before any POW could be taken as a wife. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel’s soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape (and most certainly sexual slavery) was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.

But our minds go right to sex. Why is that? It's certainly more OUR issue than any fault in the Bible or the way it is written.

> It doesn’t even mention the men or the boys who did not commit the original crime.

It doesn't need to. Israelite law was casuistic, not apodictic. Just like in our culture, they knew the protocol and what was expected of them. In this writing in Numbers 31, they are being granted permission to take a POW home as wife as long as they follow all the correct procedures and act to protect her. They all know that they are not there to slaughter little boys just because that wasn't specified. It's not how their law or culture worked.

> Why wouldn’t that verse be clear if it meant what you think it means?

There are elements of high culture and low culture in any writing. If I say "I ate my lunch," that's very understandable just about everywhere. But if I listen to a traffic report—traffic reports are often VERY specific to the environment, using words that only make sense to the city it's given: "The Can of Worms is jammed up today, but the flow at the Big Blue is pretty good." Whaaaat? You have to be a resident to get it. There's nothing unclear about it to the immediate culture, but it's a total confusion to an outsider.

These rules of warfare were clearly understood for centuries, if not more than a millennium. The fact that we are of a completely different culture makes them harder for us; that's why we have to get back to the intent of the author. The verse is perfectly clear to them.

> Your belief in what it means is not supported by the text, the context, or what we all know happened to women in those days when one army defeated another.

I've given my case, and it IS supported by the text, the context, and Israelite culture. I've addressed Hebrew language, who the Midianites were, how ancient warfare worked, the culture of ancient Israel, and explanations of the texts. If you claim differently, let's see your evidence. You've given nothing so far.

> You don’t have much to go on here, except a strong desire for one particular conclusion, no matter what the facts say.

This is completely false. I've given a case and supported my positions with evidence from archaeologists, the context, linguistics, and cultural studies. Give your case. Show me where Israelites were involved in warfare rape or sexual slavery. Show me where it was part of their culture and practice.

But the Bible doesn’t say to spare and “keep for yourself” the people who were not part of the original crime. It doesn’t even mention the men or the boys who did not commit the original crime. It just says to keep for yourself the virgin women. Why wouldn’t that verse be clear if it meant what you think it means?

Your belief in what it means is not supported by the text, the context, or what we all know happened to women in those days when one army defeated another. You don’t have much to go on here, except a strong desire for one particular conclusion, no matter what the facts say.

The Bible is accused of so many morally repugnant things because, as I have shown, it is misinterpreted and distorted. As I have shown in this situation, some research changes the entire perspective and shows all the false understandings.

> you have to do these mental gymnastic every time to explain it away

They're not mental gymnastics, but research into the text and the surrounding culture of the times, which is legitimate. There's no arguing that the Bible written to a different culture with a different worldview in a different language. These sections were written 3000 years ago. I would expect that some understanding of the culture would be good scholarship, not mental gymnastics.

Our task is to understand what the author meant by what he said. That desire should govern the way we interpret a text.

> Surely sometimes it means what it says, no?

Of course. But in this case, their worldview and practices are radically different from ours, so we dare not infuse our modern mind into their 3000-yr-old writing. Instead, we have to get into the ancient mind.

Just for an analogy, there's a sign in front of our local grocery store that says "No Standing." We all know it doesn't mean that you can't stand there; we understand it's not about standing at all but rather about that you can't park your car there. Three thousand years from now, this sign would be very confusing to someone who has just bits and pieces of our culture trying to figure out why people had to sit down in that spot. Sure, it's clear English, but our culture context affects greatly what that means.

The same with signs on doors that say "Keep This Door Closed at all Times." We know that's not what it means. It doesn't mean you can never open it to go through it but rather than the door shouldn't be propped open. It would be very confusing to someone of another culture for whom English was not their primary language and who didn't understand the cultural meaning of that sign.

Instead, we have to understand what the author meant by it in the context of their culture. Certain texts, like this one, demand that of us as well.

The Bible says so many morally repugnant things, and you have to do these mental gymnastic every time to explain it away. Surely sometimes it means what it says, no?

Thanks for asking. Let me explain how it makes sense. The women of these five cities had been involved in seducing the men of Israel, both sexually and religiously. They motivated the men to adultery, wreaking havoc in their homes, families, and communities, and they motivated the men to idolatry, wreaking havoc in their relationship with God. But any girl who was still a virgin obviously had not been involved in those activities. How could they be? They were virgins, and therefore hadn't had sex with the men. Therefore these virgins were innocent, and they were not to be killed. The Israelites were not to kill innocent people. It was a military action against military adversaries and those who were guilty of crimes, not against innocent by-standers or normal citizens. It wasn't genocide, and they were'n't taking the girls as sex slaves. There's nothing in the text even hinting at sex slavery, and God restricted Israelite men from using captive women as sexual slaves. It's an idea that's not in the text. You can't find it in the text because it's not there. It's only there by assuming it's there and reading it in, which is a false way to analyze the text and the situation.

If “Kill them all” wasn’t literal, then why would the virgin women need to be saved? None of what you are saying makes sense.