Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Tebpla]

> You are inaccurately interpreting what "made in the image of God" means.

It's not just me, there are people who think that god literally looks like a human being, or that it means we're the only animals with spirits/souls. That's the thing about interpretation, there's no way to know who's doing it correctly. It just becomes personal opinion, I know I'm in the same boat, and what I said is just my opinion. But that speaks to another problem with the religion.

> Are you familiar with what happened in the flogging and crucifixion of Jesus?

Yeah, he was tortured and killed, but then he came back to life and went to rule in heaven. This undermines the whole thing. Sure the torture may have been bad, but people have been through much worse, like the slaves in the Bible probably did for example.

It's funny how a lot of those commandments are symbolism for negative pagan rituals, but animal sacrifice (originally a pagan ritual) is still required. The symbolism is also sort of lost when punishment for not keeping the commandment is death.

> The "decimation" language of the ancient world was not a literal expectation, but rhetorical warfare language.

This would make sense if those parts of the Bible were written in past tense, i.e. "The Israelites killed every man woman and child and even the livestock, except for the women who had not yet seen a man." But that's not how it reads, it reads in present tense, and the order is coming out of god's mouth (or Moses' mouth, but Moses talked to god).

> You are confusing omniscience and omnipotence.

I'm not saying omniscience means you should be able to do things beyond your power simply by having knowledge of events. But I was under the impression that god is also omnipotent.

[jimwalton]

> That's the thing about interpretation, there's no way to know who's doing it correctly.

This is the problem. There IS a way to know who's doing it correctly. People aren't just free to interpret a text the way they want, *but they do*. We let the Bible interpret the Bible; it's not personal opinion. When the Bible says God made them in his image, the Bible tells us what that means: Rule over the earth. It's not a problem with religion, but with people.

> Sure the torture may have been bad

The point is not that he suffered the worst of any human being by comparison, or that he suffered everything possible to suffer. (He didn't. For instance, he didn't know the suffering of having a child who died from disease or injury.) The point is that his suffering was both severe and undeserved. In those senses, as well as others, it was sacrificial.

> It's funny how a lot of those commandments are symbolism for negative pagan rituals, but animal sacrifice (originally a pagan ritual) is still required.

I couldn't deal with the whole subject in just a few words, and I still can't. There was far more to it than symbolism for negative pagan rituals. The life is in the blood, and blood sacrifices are a way of affirming life before God. Anyway who will not affirm life and who separates themselves from life knows that the only possible antithesis is death. If you don't want anything to do with life, death is what you choose. That's what's behind the sacrifices.

> Genocide ("decimation")

The goal of the conquest was not genocide, but occupation. Repeatedly the commands of God are to drive the Canaanites from the land (Ex. 23.30 as one example of many). More to the point, the Canaanites were first to be given an opportunity to surrender and become part of Israel (Dt. 20.10), and if they would not surrender, to engage them in battle.

In those days the cities were fortresses surrounding governmental and cultic structures, not dwellings for the population. When commands were given to conquer cities, it was the rulers and soldiers the army was after, not the population. In the agrarian society of the Canaanite city-states, more than 90% of the people lived in the countryside as farmers, and less than 10% of the population lived in the cities. The cities were mostly fortresses and governmental centers. Almost exclusively, when a city was attacked, it was military action against military personnel and the rulers of the region, not against the general (and innocent) population. It was impossible, without nuclear weaponry, to wipe out all the citizenry. There was never an attempt to wipe them out.

The "kill 'em all" speeches of the ancient Near East were a case of customary warfare bravado, and people in those days didn't take it literally. What it meant was: "Secure a total victory." The language is used in Josh. 10.40-42; 11.16-23; yet they readily acknowledge that it wasn't literally true (Judges 1.21, 27-28). On the one hand, Joshua says he utterly destroyed the Anakim (Josh. 11.21-22), but then he gives Caleb permission to drive them out of the land (Josh. 14.12-15; cf. 15.13-19). What it proves it that "kill them all" was an idiom of warfare that meant "We won a decisive victory." No people groups were being wiped out. This was pretty typical of the whole region in this era.

We know that the people groups that Joshua claims were "utterly destroyed from the earth" continued on, such as the Anakim I have already mentioned. The same is true of the Amalekites of 1 Sam. 15 (the Amalekites were a people group for about 1000 years after being "totally destroyed"), and all of the Canaanite groups. The point was not to kill them all in a genocidal frenzy, but to win a decisive military victory over their armies and politicians, drive all rebels from the land, assimilate those who were willing, and to destroy the false religious practices that would corrupt the people of God.

> But I was under the impression that god is also omnipotent.

He is, but that doesn't mean he uses his power to force us to do everything we do, i.e., that we are just robots. His knowledge (omniscience) doesn't force us to do anything, and his power (omnipotence) doesn't force us to do everything. What you said was, "If you're all powerful, but you don't use your power to influence things, you may as well be powerless." That's true, but God *does* use his power to influence things, but he doesn't use it to force too many things. That's where the distinction has to be made.

[Kamahama]

> you aren't just separated from God because A&E flubbed up. You are separated from God because you yourself, personally, are a sinner also and commit the same rebellion against God every day.

Won't I suffer the consequences of A&E's mistake (toil, pain, death) no matter what I do? We are born into this world, we do not have a choice as they did.

> It probably wasn't a literal snake.

The point is that God did not warn them of the danger posed by lying angels. That's a very interesting note about the translation but I don't think it changes anything in the context of this particular discussion.

> There was nothing arbitrary about the rules God picked, and He explained many of them.

He explained some of them, and some of them are self-evident. But there are loads of others that are unexplained and certainly seem arbitrary. In Judaism they call divine rules with no known explanation chukim.

A parent (at least a good one) does not have seemingly-arbitrary, unexplained rules for their children. Only for their pets.

[jimwalton]

> Won't I suffer the consequences of A&E's mistake (toil, pain, death) no matter what I do? We are born into this world, we do not have a choice as they did.

No. You suffer the consequences of your own sin (Dt. 24.16, for instance). You are judged on the basis of your own works (Rev. 2012; 2 Cor. 5.10), not on those of anyone else, especially Adam and Eve.

You do have a choice. Every moment you have a choice. You can choose to repent of your sins and give your life to God and be granted forgiveness and made a new creation, or you can choose to remain in your sins, remain defiant of God, and remain in your rebellion. All you have to do is turn to God, and sin can be forgiven. You can do that even right now. You most definitely have a choice, every minute of your life.

> The point is that God did not warn them of the danger posed by lying angels.

We are most certainly not given the entire dialogue of everything that was said between God and them. What we are told is that they were informed of what was right and wrong, that they could understand that, and they had the freedom to choose as they wished. The point is that you always believe God over other contradictory information, regardless of its source.

> But there are loads of others that are unexplained and certainly seem arbitrary.

Oh, are you talking about the rest of the Torah now, or are we still in the context of Genesis 2-3 and the Garden? Even if we're talking about the Torah (which I didn't know we had made that switch), the rules are nothing close to arbitrary. There are reasons for them.

> A parent (at least a good one) does not have seemingly-arbitrary, unexplained rules for their children.

This isn't so at all. Very few parents explain all the rationale for every rule they give their children. To some extent we are learning to respect authority, even if it is not explained.

But God did explain the rationale behind the Torah law: (1) so that you will be holy, as I am holy, (2) do not become like the pagans, because their lifestyle, values and morals are an abomination, (3) you are a nation of priests and have been given the role of caring for sacred space and maintaining a relationship with your God, (4) so that my presence can remain with you.

[Tebpla]

> We let the Bible interpret the Bible; it's not personal opinion. When the Bible says God made them in his image, the Bible tells us what that means: Rule over the earth.

It's still your personal opinion that that's what the Bible meant by 'image'; a book is incapable interpreting anything at all, much less itself.

> of having a child who died from disease or injury.) The point is that his suffering was both severe and undeserved. In those senses, as well as others, it was sacrificial.

The fact that it was undeserved makes it even more disgusting. Why punish the innocent? But I guess that's normal for god isn't it? It wasn't even as much of a sacrifice as it was a bad weekend, you mean I have to be tortured and killed, but then I get to come back to heaven and it'll save all of mankind? I'm in.

> The "kill 'em all" speeches of the ancient Near East were a case of customary warfare bravado, and people in those days didn't take it literally.

Right, once again this makes sense if the Bible said something like: "and Moses led the Israelites to the land of the Canaanites, the battle was fierce and not a single Canaanite remained.

But this is not the case. It is an order from god to literally kill everyone, here's an example. It's a lot to quote so I'll paraphrase but I'll include the important verses word for word.

In the book of Numbers, chapter 31, god tells Moses to avenge Israel of the Midianites. Moses prepares an army and sends the Israelites to battle.

7 "And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." (Verse seven, here's the 'kill em all' war bravado you were talking about)

But then the story goes on to explain that the Israelite soldiers captured all the women and children and cattle and brought them back to their camp. (Again, possibly war bravado)

But here's where it gets really interesting, Moses sees what the soldiers have done and he is furious.

Here's his reaction (verse 15-18)

"15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (yes this means children), and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

This makes no sense in the context of war bravado, why would they need to single out the women and male children from the female children?

Your god allowed this, at no point did he say "hey woah woah, chill out Moses, I think you guys won." If you argue for an omniscient god then it makes it worse, because then god commanded Moses to lead the attack, knowing what would happen to the children.

Another example is in 1 Samuel 15, god commands Saul to wipe out the Amalekites.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:3)

This is also not bravado, it is Samuel telling Saul what god commanded.

[jimwalton]

> It's still your personal opinion that that's what the Bible meant by 'image'; a book is incapable interpreting anything at all, much less itself.

With this kind of reasoning we must discard all books, because all writing must be interpreted, and according to what you say, all interpretation is mere opinion, and it can't be counted on. Therefore, throw them all away as useless drivel. I take a different approach: the consistency in books, and their concordance with reality, and reasonable principles of interpretation can yield the true and intended meaning of writing. Such is the case with what "image of God" means.

> Why punish the innocent?

You misunderstand. Jesus gave his life freely. A mother who rushes into a burning building to save her child isn't ridiculed as "disgusting," but as noble. She wasn't being punished in her innocence, but sacrificed herself freely out of love. That's what Jesus did. It was an act of self-sacrifice from a heart of love.

> Numbers 31

Again, you misunderstand. 90% of the population of Canaan, and places like Midian, lived out in the countryside. Only 10% lived in the cities, and those were the political officers (kings and their families, treasurer, etc., and soldiers, and a staff of workers to serve them, like food preparation). When Moses attacked "the Midianites," he attacked some of the cities. God was more concerned about the destruction of the Canaanite religion than the people. God repeatedly said that any who would repent and surrender could be incorporated peacefully into the nation of Israel. Any attacked city was given a chance to surrender (Deut. 20.10). Any city that didn't surrender was given a chance to leave the region (the repeated "drive them out" language all through these books). If they wouldn't surrender and wouldn't leave, they were engaged in battle.

Moses attacked the cities. This is not genocide. The Midianites were a large confederation of nomadic tribes. They roamed all through the areas of Sinai, the Negev, and the Transjordan. They were Bedouin by practice and culture, though there were some villages and a few walled cities that were populated by Midianites. The Israelites are not riding through the entire Middle East slaughtering innocents. Here is it those particular Midianites associated with Moab that are targeted. This particular collection of villages and been hostile to Israel, and they had been a moral detriment to the people. They had instigated hostility against them, and it was time for military action. The Israelites did execute the 5 kings of Midian (Num. 31.8), but this is by no means a genocide. The Midianites show up later in the times of the Judges (Judges 6.1), to confirm for us that the ethnic group was not wiped from the face of the earth. Gideon defeated them in Judges 7, but they're still around as a people group. The prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 3.7) mentions them in about 600 BC, so they're still around then.

The males of those cities were killed, because they are a military threat (Num. 31.17). All non-virgins must be killed because moral contamination was more a threat to Israel's demise than military threat. These women were also guilty of seducing Israel's men earlier (Num. 25). The young girls could be kept alive and incorporated into Israelite families. The young women were also innocent of the seduction of Israelite men.

The rest of the Midianite nomads, scattered all about the region in small family groups, were not a threat and were left alone, as mentioned above. The Midianites continued on in existence. This was no genocide.

> 1 Samuel 15

Same story. I don't know where you get your information, but you must read more carefully than just skimming Internet links. Just as before, the cities of the ancient Near East were mostly military strongholds and governmental centers. The general population mostly didn't live in the cities, but only traded there on occasion or went there for governmental business. Small businesses were also in the cities to service the political and military populations there, but they were largely inhabited by professional personnel. (This is confirmed by the Amarna letters.) When the command was given to attack a city, what was being attacked were not the innocents, but the perpetrators: the governing officials and their armies. "Totally destroying" the Amalekites was not logistically or militarily possible. The idea here was to punish concentrated populations of military power and regional leadership, not to destroy an entire people group. To make an analogy, they were like the "al Qaeda" of their day. You can’t just attack and wipe them out. The call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not of genocide.

Saul's target would have been the Amalekite strongholds, not the population centers. The sweeping words "all," "young and old" and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, not brutality. They would use those words even if women and children weren't present. You'll even notice in 1 Sam. 15.5 that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.

You may be wondering why Saul was censured for not killing all the animals too. Doesn't that imply pretty clearly that he had indeed killed women and children, and was castigated for sparing the poor animals? Verse 24 says Saul "violated the Lord's command and your [Samuel's] instructions." Saul's offenses were those of improper conduct in a holy war. He had failed in his role as king, being the administrator of the nation for YHWH. His job was to make sure that the Lord was properly represented: (1) make sure the people keep the covenant of the Law, (2) seek the Lord in battle, and give God credit for victory. Instead we see Saul keeping the best stuff for himself (9) and setting up a monument in his own honor (12), setting himself up as, essentially, the God of Israel (17). This is the problem. He was making himself God and taking matters into his own hands, calling honor to himself. That's the sin here.

- Verse 5: The city of Amalek was the target of the herem: their governmental and military center, and the persons who have been set up as leaders of the people group. It’s like the U.S. military taking out the al Qaeda leaders. You don’t set an ambush in a ravine for a nomadic people scattered over an entire region.
- Verse 7-9: Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let the animals go, and kept the best animals for himself and his men. The idea was not that everything be slaughtered, but that none of it be taken by the soldiers as plunder.
- Verse 12: If Saul was going to “utterly destroy” all of the Amalekites, spread out from the Brook of Egypt to Havilah, a nomadic group all over the Negev and the area of Edom, he could not possibly have accomplished this all in one night. All he did was conquer a small city.
- Verse 13: Saul felt that he had done what was expected: the herem. He did conquer the city, kill the perpetrators, take the king captive, and scatter everything else. This shows us what he felt the expectations to be. The problems at hand were his self-glorification in it, and having the kept the best of the plunder for gain.

And finally, we find that the Amalekites remain as a people group (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They weren't wiped out either. That was never the point. Samuel is using the same rhetorical warfare bravado that was their cultural frame. The Amalekites were even still around 250 years later during the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman in the story of Esther (Esth. 3.1) was an Amalekite descendant. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for almost 1000 years afterward. God had told them never to let up on their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17) because of their false religion and the fierce ways. Unlike other Canaanites and Canaanite groups, the Amalekites couldn't (wouldn't) just be assimilated into Israel life.

It's all just warfare bravado and warfare rhetoric. There was no genocide.

[Kamahama]

> You are judged on the basis of your own works (Rev. 2012; 2 Cor. 5.10), not on those of anyone else, especially Adam and Eve.

I'm not talking about final judgment, I'm talking about pain and suffering in this life. If you live completely without sin, are you spared from suffering, the way A&E were spared it before their choice? No.

Take an infant a few months old that suffers sadness and loss because their mother dies. Is that sadness/loss the result of a sin on the part of the infant? They could hardly have made any choices at this point. They were born into a dangerous world due to choices others made before them, stretching back to A&E.

> The point is that you always believe God over other contradictory information, regardless of its source.

Not if you are unaware of the concept of deception. We are most certainly not given the full dialogue, but I think we have to take the meaning based on the dialogue we have, not fill in the blanks to find the meaning most palatable to us.

> Oh, are you talking about the rest of the Torah now, or are we still in the context of Genesis 2-3 and the Garden? The rules are nothing close to arbitrary. There are reasons for them.

I'm talking about the Pentateuch. My point about chikum was just that reasons are often not given or obvious, to the point that rabbinical scholars have a special classification for such rules.

> But God did explain the rationale behind the Torah law: (1) so that you will be holy, as I am holy, (2) do not become like the pagans, because their lifestyle, values and morals are an abomination...

Those are not explanations for why acting a certain way is best, they are reasons to obey. "Because it's bad," and "Because I'll get mad at you," are not explanations. That was the point of my initial comment in this conversation - a mother explains to her child why running into the street is bad, while the dog understands only that it is.

> This isn't so at all. Very few parents explain all the rationale for every rule they give their children.

From my earliest memories my mother always explained her rules. I guess we just have different views on parenting.

[jimwalton]

> I'm not talking about final judgment, I'm talking about pain and suffering in this life.

Oh, wow, that wasn't clear at all. The book of Job teaches us that the world doesn't run according to the retribution principle (good people have it easy and get rewarded, bad people have it rough, suffering, and get punished). That's not how life works, and we are mistaken to think it should be that way. Even if one lives without sin he is not spared from suffering (Jesus is the perfect example of that). A child who loses his or her mother—this is not the result of sin. Jesus made clear in the gospels that such things don't relate inevitably to sin (Lk. 13.1-5; Jn. 9.1-3ff.). It's the same message as in Job.

Instead, as Genesis, Proverbs, and other books make clear, the world works by the principle of wisdom. "Wisdom" was perceived by their culture as the domain and expression of the gods, and the Bible expresses the same.

Besides, the world was dangerous in the days of A&E. The text doesn't insist they were the first hominids, but only separated out (Gn. 2.15). The Garden was a place to meet with God, not a place of bliss. Death was already in the system, and the world was always a dangerous place.

> Not if you are unaware of the concept of deception.

Again, the world was already a dangerous place. We have every reason to believe deception was already common. A&E would have been well-acquainted with it. God revealed himself to them in the Garden, and suddenly life could have a different trajectory if they would follow God with their lives and live by wisdom.

> My point about chikum was just that reasons are often not given or obvious, to the point that rabbinical scholars have a special classification for such rules.

Agreed that it's not always clear. We don't know why certain animals are clean and others unclean; there are multiple theories, and some make sense, but it's never explained. And yet we know what the whole "clean and unclean" categories are all about, and how "clean" is a category reflecting holiness.

> "Because it's bad," and "Because I'll get mad at you," are not explanations.

You are using a reductionist caricature of my argument to create a straw man. The Pentateuch tells us why we need to be separate from the ungodly, why we need to be holy, and why spiritual compromise is detrimental to life. We are told quite clearly.

> I guess we just have different views on parenting.

I don't think so. But not every parent explains their rules. And even those that do can't possibly explain every rule they make. We learn, sometimes, just to respect their authority, knowing that they love us and have our good and safety in mind. And that's OK.

[Tebpla]

> I take a different approach: the consistency in books, and their concordance with reality,

I get your point, but please explain to me how the Bible is concordant with reality.

> Again, you misunderstand. 90% of the population of Canaan, and places like Midian, lived out in the countryside. Only 10% lived in the cities,

I'm very curious as to how you know this. Because if this is truly the case then I completely apologize. I thought that they killed the farmers and their wives and sons, and kept the farm girl virgins for themselves too. But not that I know it was only the military officers wives and children that were slaughtered, I'm okay with it.

> All non-virgins must be killed because moral contamination was more a threat to Israel's demise than military threat. These women were also guilty of seducing Israel's men earlier

Good point, I forgot that once any woman has sex she turns into a seductive whore. And we can't be incorporating them into new families cause nobody wants a worthless non-virgin woman.

> There was no genocide.

Right so I guess Hitler didn't commit genocide either then, I mean there are Jews still alive today so it wasn't genocide.

[jimwalton]

> please explain to me how the Bible is concordant with reality.

The Bible is a tremendous resource of reliable historical, cultural, geographic, and religious information. It has been evidenced to be hugely concordant with reality. It also gives a very realistic and honest portrayal of the human condition: evil, suffering, jealousy, love, hate, vengeance, hope, forgiveness, etc.

> I'm very curious as to how you know this.

From scholars who study the ancient world. They study the archaeological evidence, look at the walls of the cities, calculate the populations of those cities, study data about the agricultural, shepherding, and "manufacturing" capabilities and locations of populations, and have discerned that in Canaan and among the Canaanites, only 10% of the populations lived in the cities. The cities back then weren't even population centers as they are now, but more like fortresses, populated by government officials and soldiers, to keep the area secure. Among nomadic populations likes the Amalekites, the percentage of people NOT in cities may have been even higher than 90%.

> But not that I know it was only the military officers wives and children that were slaughtered, I'm okay with it.

Your sarcasm doesn't help to make your point. The soldiers, politicians, and anyone deemed to be a military or moral threat to the nation was who was killed.

> I forgot that once any woman has sex she turns into a seductive whore

Again, your sarcasm is not appreciated, and is even a bit misplaced. You don't score points in your argument because you're sardonic. It's not that they became seductive whores (even though they had seduced many Israelite men [Numbers 25]), but that they were complicit in the moral downfall of Israel.

> Right so I guess Hitler didn't commit genocide either then, I mean there are Jews still alive today so it wasn't genocide.

Again, the sarcasm isn't appreciated. Hitler did have an explicit Arian, white-supremacist agenda, and he did have an explicit goal to rid the earth of Jews. This was not at all the case in ancient Israel, as I proved (Dt. 20.10; also Ex. 23.28-31; 33.2, 11, 24; Lev. 18.24 et al.).