Board index ‹ God

[J Lord]

So if god commanded people to kill all the members of another tribe, it would be immoral. But isn't that what he did?

[jimwalton]

Those are the words that are used, but research into ancient cultures has revealed that these were words of warfare rhetoric and bravado that were idioms, not the commands they sound like. Whereas before this discovery people thought God was just a cruel, bloodthirsty, genocidal monster, now we know that this was just their language for "Let's win today!" Much like a football team might circle up before a game and chant "Kill! Kill! Kill!", what they mean is "We're going to win!"

- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slow “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
- The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”

We have learned from archaeological discoveries, which are corroborated in the Bible, that there was no command or intent to kill every man, woman, and child, but to vanquish the opposing army, assimilate the rest of the population into the community of Israel, wipe out false worship, and institute worship of YHWH. So the genocidal texts turn out to be not what they seem, but someone would have to be up on some current information to know that. Unfortunately, these texts are used over and over again by scoffers and skeptics to ridicule the Bible and God, and it's all a mis-interpretation that even a little research will bear out. We can talk more if you like.

[J Lord]

You said, "We have learned from archaeological discoveries, which are corroborated in the Bible, that there was no command or intent to kill every man, woman, and child,..."

What archaeological discoveries are you talking about? And how have we learned about commands from god through archaeology?

[jimwalton]

The sources I was quoting came from:

Kenneth A. Kitchen (Egyptologist): "On the Reliability of the Old Testament," 2003, pp. 474-475

K. Lawson Younger, Jr., "Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing," 1990, pp. 227-228, 245

Lori K. Rowlett, "Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historical Analysis", 1996.

Paul Copan says, What their discoveries show us is that Moses' and Joshua's "warfare rhetoric was common in other ancient Near Eastern military accounts of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. The The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as typical and acceptable hyperbole; the accounts were not understood to be literally true."

[J Lord]

So because exaggerated statements were common, we can conclude god did not command what the bible says he did? Is this really enough to say that archaeological evidence proves the bible to be not literally true?

[jimwalton]

Oh, not at all. The exaggerated rhetoric only applies in this situation to warfare bravado. And while there are other examples in the Bible of hyperbole, it's illegitimate to conclude from that that the Bible is unreliable, that the evidence proves it to be not true, and that we just can't trust it.

When the weatherman tells you the "storm of the century" is coming, or that the conditions "are a recipe for the perfect storm," we understand the hyperbole inherent in those idioms. Maybe someone 2,000 years from now wouldn't catch on, but the jargon doesn't make me never trust weathermen again if it turns out to be a bad storm and not literally "the storm of the century."

Archaeological evidence substantiates the Bible over and over. In this case it shows us that that particular locution of God has a cultural hyperbolic context and isn't meant to be understood literally.

[J Lord]

> Archaeological evidence substantiates the Bible over and over.

You would expect this to happen sometimes with regards to certain mundane historical facts since some parts of the bible were simply humans writing about their own time. It (and other physical evidence) also contradicts the bible over and over. Especially with the parts that the humans didn't know about and were just guessing (human origins, flood, etc.).

>When the weatherman tells you the "storm of the century" is coming

If a weatherman said this and the storm was just a pretty bad one that occurs every few years, it would be objectively wrong to call it the storm of the century. You could look back and say "well people used to exaggerate about storms so he probably didn't mean to say it would actually be one of the worst storms in 100 years." So you would understand why he said what he did, but you would also understand he was wrong.

So I'm not sure if you are saying that god never ordered the systematic killing of an entire tribe but the authors of the bible falsely recorded it as such? Or if you are saying that god did order the mass killing but he didn't really mean what he said because he knew that his followers would understand he was exaggerating?

But either way it shows that the bible account is not accurate.

[jimwalton]

> You would expect this to happen sometimes

You're right. Even a clock that doesn't work is right twice a day, and someone would have to be a total buffoon to now get at least some historical and geographical factors correct. No argument there.

> It (and other physical evidence) also contradicts the bible over and over.

Argument here, and therein lies the fun of debate. You certainly haven't proven your case here. I would need to hear the specific evidence to which you're referring to counter the assertion.

> Especially with the parts that the humans didn't know about and were just guessing (human origins, flood, etc.).

There is no archaeological evidence that contradicts the Bible's story of human origins. The Biblical account doesn't require that Adam and Eve were the first hominids (or even the first homo sapiens). The Bible speaks of them as archetypes, not prototypes. The information we're given from Gn. 2.5-25 is given to show us that the couple serves as archetypes of humanity, and it handles their archetypical nature from a spiritual perspective (though it portrays them as historical). It doesn't enter the discussion about where they are in the biological human chain.

> The flood

I have every reason to believe (from the Bible) the flood is not global, but is a huge regional (continental?) deluge. There is some geographical and archaeological evidence of large floods in the area, though we can't know for certain whether or not these are the flood of Noah. If Noah's flood was pre-10,000 BC, we barely have archaeological evidence of human occupation let alone of destruction. I think we could both agree with certainty that there is no archaeological evidence contradicting a continental flood in the Middle East before 10,000 BC.

> So I'm not sure if you are saying that god never ordered the systematic killing of an entire tribe...

That's exactly what I am saying. That kind of talk was the typical rhetorical warfare bravado language of his day. it was their idiom for "total victory." They didn't wipe out ethnic populations, nor was there any expectation that they would or should do so. (We can go into specifics if you want here, but I don't just want to write a wall of text.) the idea was to conquer the cities by defeating the armies, and either driving the population to outside the borders of their country, or assimilate them into their nation. That kind of warfare rhetoric ("Kill 'em all!!") was very common to the entire ancient Near East in the 2nd and 1st millennium BC. It was typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. It was in their culture understood as hyperbole—the chants of armies before the battle; the accounts and commands were not expected to be taken literally. Much as football teams gather in locker rooms and chant, "Kill! Kill! Kill!", we ALL know what they mean is "Let's win today!" WE know that nobody's gonna kill anybody. So also in the ancient Near East. They were not slaughtering babies, hacking women to pieces, and butchering little boys and girls. Their purposes were several:

- Conquer the city. Kill the opposing army until surrender.
- Either dislocate the remaining population to outside the country, or assimilate them into Israel.
- Dismantle and incapacitate their idolatrous religious system.

Nothing that you have mentioned shows that "the bible account is not accurate." Intentional literary hyperbole and cultural warfare bravado explain your misunderstandings, and explanations about creation and flood show that there is more discussion to be had here if you want, but it's certainly not reasonable to jump to conclusions.

[J Lord]

> Nothing that you have mentioned shows that "the bible account is not accurate."

You have said that god never ordered systematic killing, yet the bible reports that he did. So in this respect it is not an accurate account of what happened according to your interpretation. The reason why it was inaccurately reported is a seperate question.

> Much as football teams gather in locker rooms and chant, "Kill! Kill! Kill!", we ALL know what they mean is "Let's win today!"

If the coach said "let's win today" and I told everyone the coach said "let's kill them all" then I would be inaccurately reporting what happened. The intention might be innocent but it would certainly not be accurate reporting.

> I have every reason to believe (from the Bible) the flood is not global

Really? The bible seems pretty clear that all the land was covered with water. All the mountains under the whole of the heavens are covered. And this what all readers of the bible believed until science proved them wrong. Strange that only after being proven false do people come up with new interpretations of the passages that accord with what we now know through more reliable sources of information.

[jimwalton]

The Bible contains literary forms just as all literature does. It's filled with irony, hyperbole, parable, satire, poetry, etc. There are many many cultural idioms and figures of speech, and we would normally expect that, since it was written in a linguistic and cultural context. If you were to go to a party and say, "Yo, EVERYBODY was there!" none of us would accuse you of lying. We understand the idiom: the place was packed out with awesome people. The Bible uses idioms, too, and figures of speech. From Biblical study and cultural analysis (and we can go into those further), we understand that what God was ordering was that the Canaanites either be conquered or driven from the land, and their false religious system put to a stop. If a city surrendered, fine. No need to kill them. The point wasn't extermination, but possession of the land. The Bible is very clear about that. The vernacular of "kill every man, woman, and child" has been shown to be warfare rhetoric, and no one in Israel would have taken it to be genocide. This can be substantially evidenced.

> [the flood is not global] The bible seems pretty clear...And this what all readers of the bible believed until science proved them wrong

It's a case of hyperbole. Look at Gn. 41.57 (same author, traditionally). Joseph is doling out food because the famine is severe. "And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain..." Seriously? Were the Australians there? The Chinese? The Eskimos? I think not. "All" is hyperbole for "all the nations in the immediate region."

Look at Deut. 2.25 (same author, traditionally). God was commanding the Israelites to take the land of Canaan back. "This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven..." Here we are again. Were the Native Americans afraid? The Anglo-Saxons in the British Isles? Nope. "All" is hyperbole for all the nations in the Canaan/Mesopotamian region.

Back to Genesis 6. The Nephilim were a regional people group (Num. 13.33). Genesis 10: all of those listed in the table of nations are the Middle Eastern peoples, representing "all mankind" (Gn. 10.32).

So it's quite likely that the word "all" is hyperbole, that the Flood was MASSIVELY regional (continental?), took care of the ones about which God was speaking, and life went on from there. Makes sense to me.

> And this what all readers of the bible believed until science proved them wrong

Now, I'd be fairly certain that you can't give evidence of that. The Enlightenment changed the way people think, in scientific terms (to some extent). Isn't it quite possible, if you're going to be objective, that up until the 1700s or so, all readers of the Bible believed it was not a global flood until people in the 1700s and beyond interpreted it that way and started writing it in books (when writing was becoming more economically practical)? Maybe it's a 300-year problem, and not a biblical one...