Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    The text tells us that the women were taken as wives and not concubines. In the context of what a wife is, then it is a reasonable assumption that the man and wife would become one (i.e. integrated). This is the problem with being unequally yoked to unbelievers and who becomes the dominant partner. The practice might not always fit the principle, but it would be expected for the wife to adopt the religious practices of the Hebrew husband. If not, then we have problems and that would prove the point that it would have been better for Israel to have killed them all instead of getting perverted by heathen religions. This was the reason for completely removing these heathen nations from the promised land.
    Good morning David,

    It is good to find agreement on what the Bible actually states. Without that foundation, all our discussion becomes quite tedious and ultimately meaningless.

    Where does the text tell us that "the women were taken as wives and not concubines"? Here is what the text actually states:
    Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. ... 25 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers' households of the congregation, take a count of the booty that was captured, both of man and of animal; 27 and divide the booty between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation.
    The word "wife" or "wives" does not appear in Numbers 31 at all. I do not understand why you feel free to make up stuff and falsely assert that it is what the Bible says. Is this not a most egregious error?
    This is the difference between us, you are blinkered to the text and forget the principles that were laid down. You are not looking within the Bible to get to to the truth. The fact that "wife" is not mentioned does not mean that the virgins were not saved to become wives. Maybe the principle that was laid down before this episode is why Moses made the decision he did and the virgins were kept to be wives.
    Deuteronomy 21;
    9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
    10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
    11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
    Good morning David,

    When are you going to stop posting falsehoods and absurdities? If anyone is "blinkered" to what the Bible actually states, it is you because you are trying to force it to fit your false presuppositions. I have proven this dozens of times and you have never shown any error in the evidence I have given. Case in point: You falsely assert that I have ignored the "principles laid down" in the Bible when in fact that I have done nothing of the kind. The Bible explicitly states that soldiers can take captive women that they find "desirable" for "wives" and discard them like a used rag if they are not "pleased" with them:
    Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [had sex with] her.
    Is that how a man deals with a "wife" with whom he has "become one (i.e. integrated)"? Of course not. The problem here is that you are basing your comments on an English translation and importing the modern concept of "wife" while ignoring the underlying Hebrew language and context. The word translated as "wife" is aishah which simply means "woman." The text says only that the soldier could take the captive to be "his woman." It implies nothing about how she would be treated and given the "principles laid down" in the Bible we know that it does not mean what you said because he can discard her if she does not please him. So much for the "family values" taught in the Bible, eh?

    Your error is amplified by your comment that the "text tells us that the women were taken as wives and not concubines." The text of Numbers 31 (which we were discussing) says no such thing, and the text that you then cited in support of your assertion says no such thing because a "concubine" is also a "woman." The words can be used synonymously as in this passage:
    Judges 19:1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine (aishah) out of Bethlehemjudah. 2 And his concubine (pilegesh) played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.
    So the question is this: What is the real difference between a wife and a concubine in the Bible? It doesn't say. If you want your point to stand, you will have to find a Biblical definition of those terms. But I don't see how you can do that, since the Bible says that Solomon had "he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines" (1 Kings 11:3). Exactly what is the difference between the two? Did Solomon "become one (i.e. integrated) with his seven hundred wives, but not his three hundred concubines?

    Now since the Bible does not define the difference between a woman who is a "wife" and a woman who is a "concubine" we must appeal to other sources. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that concubines "enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife." Unfortunately, it does not tell us what defines a "legitimate" wife, and as far as I can tell, neither does the Bible. So your entire argument is based on things not taught in the Bible. You have imported your modern concept of "wife" and ignored (i.e. blinkered yourself) concerning what the Bible actually states.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the slaughter of all the Midianites was justified because they were "reprobates" while the Israelites incorporated 32,000 virgins into their society. You attempted to answer this point by saying:
    If the women saved were properly integrated into the Hebrew society and taught the ways of God, then they would not have led the Hebrews astray. It is a failing on the part of the Hebrews, if they did not fully integrate the women into their society
    Your explanation fails on multiple points. First, there is nothing in the text that says the Midianites were "reprobates beyond saving" (which is the reason you gave Rose). Second, if they were reprobates, then so were the virgins so your argument is logically incoherent. Third, there is no reason to think that the Hebrews could have "integrated" such reprobates "into Hebrew society" in such a way as to prevent their spreading corruption. It seems to me that you are just making up stuff to try to force the Bible to fit your preconceived notions. This is the PRIMARY ERROR that all people seeking truth must directly address or fall victim to. It does not seem that you are aware that you, like me and everyone else, must guard against self-deception. This is why our discussions are so very valuable. We can help each other see and correct self-deception that is common to all of us.
    I know you love to debate and you do not pick up on some of the points I make and so as you would say; "you miss my point". A nation can be considered to be reprobates on a national level. This does not say that some righteous people could have lived among them. God has shown us of times when the righteous were saved and I will stick to that point of view that God saves the righteous. The fact you do not accept is; the the children of whatever gender (one would presume young girls to be virgins) those children would have grown up to accept the idolatry of their parents. That is why they would have grown up to be reprobates. If there was an exception to this, then I expect God would have saved them. The fact that God did not save them, proves my point. I have explained the problem and the decision made by Moses in my reply to Rose.
    Apparently we both "love to debate."

    It is rather ironic that you say I do not pick up on some of your points, given that you did not answer mine! Here they are again:
    • The text says nothing about the Midianites being "reprobates beyond saving."
    • If the reprobates deserved death, then so did the virgins.
    • If the virgins were reprobates beyond saving then why were they saved?

    I appears that you are so "blinkered" you cannot even read and understand my questions.

    I trust you see that throwing out false accusations (e.g. "blinkered") degrades our discourse and causes a lot of "blowback" since you are the one who is obviously "blinkered." I wouldn't feel a need to speak so plainly if you could control yourself better and keep your comments based on logic and facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Do you agree that all humans are prone to self-deception to greater or lesser degrees? Do you agree that any truth seeker must do everything possible to guard against it? If so, do you see that "making excuses" to force ideas to fit preconceived ideas is the greatest danger for any truth seeker? If so, what do you think is the best solution to this problem we all face?
    The best solution is to keep hearing all the arguments and take into consideration all the principles laid down by God. Principles that do not change (as God does not change). We draw our conclusions from all the facts that we have at the time of drawing our conclusion. If new facts come along to make us change/modify our conclusion, then that is what must happen.
    You totally missed my point. I was trying to help you see that you are blinkered by your presuppositions. You are deceiving yourself. The proof is quite obvious. You know that you cannot give any justification or your fundamental belief that the Bible is the word of God and neither can you show any distinction between your belief from the Muslim belief in the Koran.

    So please think about this. How do you protect yourself from blinkering and deluding yourself? I protect myself by not asserting anything as fact if I can't support it with logic and facts. How do you protect yourself? How are you beliefs different than the beliefs of others, like Mormons and Muslims, that you think are "blinkered"?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    This brings up a problem of central importance. You speak of "the books that have been accepted." Accepted by whom? And why? By what authority? Which human authorities do you accept as sufficiently authoritative to tell you which books belong in the Bible? It appears you have never asked yourself this most fundamental of all questions. Everything you believe rests upon your acceptance of the Bible you have received from the Protestant Reformers. But you reject many of their doctrines, such as the Trinity and what happens when a person dies. Why then do you accept them as authorities when it comes to defining the Bible? Other Christians, indeed most, accept other books in the Bible. Some (the Ethiopians) even accept the Book of Enoch. So what is the FOUNDATION upon which your faith in the Protestant Bible rests?
    I said that I can see the hand of God in preserving His word and that is all I need to know. Who the precise body of people were makes no difference. God rules in the kingdoms of men and that is sufficient for me to know that God will work to influence any committee/church where it suits God's purpose on matters like the preserving the truth for mankind. The proof is that we have the Bible today when it could so easily have been destroyed completely by those dictators that tried to eradicate it. The proof of God's involvement is not a proof that can be documented. This is in the same the proof of miracles cannot be documented. It is a miracle the Bible has survived. It is also hard to prove by documentary evidence that a miracle has not occurred, when there is the evidence that a miracle has been done.
    That sounds like the ultimate blinker! You assert you can "see" something that you cannot explain, describe, point to, or support with any logic and facts. How is that different than all the people like Mormons and Muslims that believe the same thing about their books? Why can't you see this is the most fundamental of all questions since it is the foundation of your entire faith?

    Your assertion that the "proof is that we have the Bible today" is false because we don't have only one Bible. That's the point of my question. You have no logic or facts to support your decision to follow one version of the Bible over the others, and indeed, you have no foundation for believing it is the Word of God at all. This is the most fundamental of all questions because everything you say rests upon your assertion that the Bible is God's Word. If you want me to stop pressing this point, then all you need to do is quit asserting it in your arguments. That's your error. It's fine if you want to believe it, but you can't use it in a LOGICAL ARGUMENT because it is an unfounded assertion. You need to use LOGIC and FACTS in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    As for you response to my statement that it is "logically incoherent" to say that "God's judgment I accept is better than human judgment." I was not saying that God couldn't read minds (assuming he exist). That was not my point. My point was that it is logically incoherent for you to think that you can know "God's judgment better than human judgement" because the only way you think you know God's judgment is through your own fallible human judgment. This is another problem of primary importance. It is delusional to think that you know "God's judgment" when all you really know are your own judgments, because for all you know, you could be mistaking your own judgments for those of God. If you ever accidentally do this, then you will be mistaking your own FALLIBLE HUMAN JUDGMENTS for the INFALLIBLE JUDGMENTS OF GOD. This means that you will think that ERROR is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and that's the definition of "delusion." This is why it is so important to deal with this issue. How you do protect yourself from being deluded by your presuppositions?
    I wonder if our other readers have the same problem in understanding me and the point I am making. If you want to keep tripping me up on my wording when the sense can be clearly understood, then that is the way I see you winning your argument by making me appear to say absurd things. I think that I am being logical in saying; God knows things that man does not know. God's judgment is based on things that man does not know. God's judgment when based on all the facts (including those not known by man) has to be better. Man is not just, God is just. Do you need proof. Is not the record of God prove that He is just?

    Knowing all the facts or as many of the facts that we can at the time or drawing a conclusion is the best we can do.
    I am not trying to "trip you up" on anything. The problem is that your logic is twisted on this point. You constantly contrast "God's judgment" and "God's logic" with "human judgment" and "human logic." I've been trying to help you see this error for at least a year. You have no access to "God's logic" because you are a human and all your logic, even when you judge it to be "God's logic" is really your own human fallible logic.

    Your assertion that "God is just" has absolutely NO basis in fact if we take the Bible as a witness. The Bible repeatedly shows God acting in ways that violate all rationality and justice. Your assertion that we cannot know this because maybe there are "hidden reasons" God did the things in the Bible only means that we can't say anything about God at all. Maybe he's the Devil and wrote the Bible to confuse us. By your logic, there is no way for any humans to judge anything good or bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That's not true at all. I don't have any presuppositions that force me to any particular conclusion. I am totally open to whatever the Bible says, even if it contradicts itself. You cannot admit that the Bible contradicts itself, so you are forced to make up explanations that have no foundation in the text. You and I have nothing in common on this point. You cannot legitimately "say the same thing" about me.
    I do not remain open to your assertion the Bible contradicts itself. If verses are properly understood that explains any apparent contradiction, then there is no contradiction in that verse. This is the conclusion I have drawn based on all the facts I have. The fact is you have not and do not accept explanations that take away the apparent contradictions. Therefore, you stick to your own conclusions the same as I stick to mine. Unless new evidence come forth that we accept, neither of us will change our conclusions.
    You don't need to agree with me. I was just telling you how I see things. But you should at the very least be open to the possibility, since otherwise you will have no way to know if you are any different than a Muslim or a Mormon who believes only what he chooses to believe and ignores reality.

    What if God himself chose to put contradictions in the Bible to confound the unbelievers? There is no reason to deny this possibility, and it answers a LOT of the problems. And besides, there is reason to think it possible because both Christ and the Bible are called "stumbling stones" and it is impossible to believe that God is the author of the Bible if the contradictions were not deliberately put there by him.

    I'm truly stunned that you don't see the error in your logic. The "explanations" that you accept are not explanations at all. They are exercises in extreme word twisting that would never satisfy any rational skeptic. They look to me like the essence of delusion. If you were consistent in your "standards" by which you "explain" the contradictions, the entire Bible would be reduced to meaningless gibberish. Why can't you see this?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Post-modern interpreters would agree that you could say the same about me, and add that this is a fundamental problem that applies to all interpretations of all texts, and that this means they have no meaning at all. I don't go so far as that. I think there are ways we can protect ourselves against delusion and the reading of our own meaning into the text. I think I have developed skills in this regard, and that you most certainly cannot "say the same thing about me." I do not torture the text to force it to fit any preconceived idea. I accept that the text may be logically incoherent. That's why I can accept everything it says. You can't do this because you begin with the presupposition that the Bible is God's Word and that it is LOGICALLY COHERENT. Thus, you are compelled to twist words until they "fit" in what you consider to be a "logically coherent" pattern. It is your presupposition that forces you to contort the text.
    You accept logically incoherent text on which to ground your belief in logic and facts. That seems inconsistent to me and a massive mistake. The fact is, I interpret the text in a way that makes it logically coherent and is the reason I draw the conclusions I have. I do not have to "twist" words to force the meaning. If no words could be found or were totally inconsistent and could not be made to fit, then your point would be valid. Accept all possible interpretations that are legitimate and are not in error before reaching a conclusion. By rejecting explanations that are just as legitimate as yours, you exclude the facts from all possible facts by which to draw a conclusion. Your conclusion is therefore based on a limited number of facts/explanations.
    You didn't understand my comment. The Bible contradicts itself on many points. The only rational response is to accept it is self-contradictory. This is called "accepting reality." There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about accepting reality.

    I do not reject any legitimate explanations. If you want to make assertions like that, you must quote something I have written and prove it. Otherwise it's just more empty bluster.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    OK - I guess we both know that you cannot answer these points and you have accepted your faith is no different than Islam, Scientology, or Hinduism. I'll keep that in mind in future posts. I'll make this my last appeal to your reason on this point. And so I will speak plainly and be done with it. To assert "the truth of the Bible is a fact" appears to me to be delusional. There is no foundation for such a belief. It directly contradicts many facts. And most significantly, the Bible does not even define itself, so you assertion is based on nothing but baseless traditions you have uncritically accepted. Your claim that prophecy confirms the Bible is highly disputable, and even if there are some prophecies, that does nothing to discern between the different versions of the Bible with the Apocrypha, or even the Book of Enoch. It doesn't even help you know if all 66 books belong in it. Does this not imply that your faith has no foundation whatsoever? How do you deal with the facts?
    To accept the fact of the reality of God's word as I have come to accept it, is no more delusional as you for now rejecting it. You have reached your conclusions by accepting a limited number of explanations/facts.
    There is a verse that does partly explain itself (2 Tim 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, For you to ignore this fact and say that the writing of Paul is of itself not inspired writing is going to lead you to the conclusions you make. Now I have given you an answer that makes your claim that "the Bible does not define itself" is a false statement. To now refuse to accept this shows us why no one will ever convince you or win with you. Your type of reasoning is not going to convince me when you do not accept what Paul has written is true. That is what Paul believed and I believe Paul because he was chosen by God to spread God's word to the Gentiles.
    There is no equivalence of any kind between my rejection of all baseless assertions about religious texts (e.g. Koran, Mormon, Bible, etc.) and the baseless choices of Muslims, Mormons, and Christians to believe that their books are God's Word. For you to say that it is delusional for me to reject the Bible is perhaps the most delusional thing you have ever said.

    Your appeal to 2 Tim 3:16 reveals that you are utterly blinkered. That verse DOES NOT DEFINE the Bible!

    How can you persist in such blatant error? First, context tells us that Paul was talking about the OT because the NT wasn't even written yet and he was writing his letters to people who would have understood "Scripture" as referring to the OT. Second, even if you want to say that God inspired that verse to refer to the yet incomplete body of all Scripture, it still does not tell you which books belonged in the Bible. If you can't understand something as simple as this, how can you have any confidence in your other beliefs which are based on the Bible?

    And you assertion that my refusal to accept your blatant irrationality "shows us why no one will ever convince you or win with you" is FREAKING INSANE! I have been totally and absolutely rational in all my discussions on this forum and I am totally willing to admit when I am wrong. This is because I have no irrational RELIGIOUS DOGMAS to defend. I have nothing to lose but any errors I may hold. My mind is FREE while your mind is totally shackled by your religion. Everything is different for you. Your faith is extremely fragile and brittle. Your faith would shatter and be reduced to nothing if you ever admitted that the Bible contained any fundamental errors. Thus you are utterly and totally BLINKERED and cannot admit any fact that contradicts your presuppositions.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Your assertion that I "do not want to believe the Bible" is false and entirely unfounded. I LOVED believing the Bible for over a decade. Then I began to be honest and admit what it really says. Very few Bible believers are able to be honest about the Bible. I consider this one of the most pathetic ironies - those who most fervently claim to believe the Bible are the least likely to admit and accept what it actually says. (I'm speaking generally, not of you in particular).
    What I say might be untrue for the reasons you have, but from my perspective this is what you lead me to think. The way you reject what parts of the Bible say such as "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God" I think proves my point. If you argue against this, you are not accepting what the Bible says. I accept what the Bible says and I find meaning to all that it says and sometimes the meaning is not the face value of the words that the translators have used.
    I rejected your appeal to 2 Timothy 3L16 because it was blatantly false and irrational, as I showed above. You really need to admit this fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That's not true. I reject nothing that can be supported with logic and facts. The simple truth is that you do not have any good reasons for many of your beliefs. If you did, you would be able to show my errors. But you can't do that. All you can do is falsely claim that I have no reasons for rejecting your unfounded assertions. I always give good reasons based on logic and facts. If you can't refute me using logic and facts, then my points stand.
    You have said above; "I accept that the text may be logically incoherent. That's why I can accept everything it says." I see this as a massive mistake and you accept the texts when they appear to be logically incorrect. First of all, I would try to see if they can be made to be logically correct by looking at all possible explanations by considering all possible words the translators could have used and the meaning of the words intended as best we can know what the author intended us to know. Unless this is done, errors in believing what is the truth are bound to arise. Stop accusing me of doing something you ought to be doing.
    This is your most fundamental error. On the one hand, you say we should "look at all possible explanations" while on the other hand, you reject the most obvious explanations of all, namely, that the Bible could be wrong, logically incoherent, etc.

    Your position is entirely inconsistent and biased towards your preconceived conclusion. That is the most obvious of all errors. How can you willfully persist in such blatant error?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We do seem to have made a little progress. I must make a note of the things we agree on so I can be reminded. However, the proof of real agreement is when I deal with the same matters again that will not get you replying in disagreement

    All the best

    David
    Yes, we've made lot's of progress. I hope it continues.

    All the very best to you my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    In asking ourselves "why was Moses angry?" we need to examine the text closely. First we see that the Lord commands Moses to kill all the males, then the text says that the Hebrews took ALL the women (ishshah) and children captive. After that we read that Moses is angry with the officers and captains, because they saved ALL the women (neqebah) alive...apparently some of these non-virgin women had been the cause of the Hebrew men trespassing against the Lord. So, Moses proceeds to command the soldiers to kill all the male children and non-virgin women, then he commands them to keep the virgins alive for themselves!
    Num.31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males...9) And the children of Israel took all the women(ishshah) of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods...14) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women (neqebah) alive? 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. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    This seems to pretty well explain why Moses was angry, but that really is not the point of this thread which is titled "Does the Bible support sex slavery?" It is abundantly clear from the text that the Bible most certainly does support sex slavery. Moses explicitly told the Hebrew men that they were to keep the virgins alive and take them for themselves!
    Point #1. The LORD said (Num 31:2); Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: There is nothing to say here whether only males should be killed or whether women and children were to be killed as well. We might conclude from when God later gave the instruction to clear the Promised Land, Moses could have received the same instruction to kill all including the women and children.

    Point #2. The LORD did not tell Moses (as I have shown above) to kill just the males. Note that the text is split into two parts; the first part is; (7) And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; We do not know what the specific commandment was and so we we either guess or we make an educated deduction from other parts of scripture as in the case of cleansing the Promised Land The second part of the sentence is; and they slew all the males. This could have easily been made a sentence of its own and not separated by a semi-colon as it is in my Bible. All we are told is that they slew all the males and has nothing to do with the actual words commanded by God.

    Point #3. Moses is angry after finding out that the women and children had been saved, which is why I asked the question; why was Moses angry? I do not see that you answered the question correctly. Moses was angry because either his instruction to the officers in charge of the soldiers had been deliberately ignored or forgotten or there was a lack of clear instruction on the part of Moses. Moses was angry because his expectation of his (or God's) instructions had not been met. Those instructions, we rightly conclude (IMO) must have been to kill all males, women and children.

    You might not think it important, but I am using this as an example where we have to understand the text correctly. The Bible is economical with words and it is up to us to correctly the understand the message of the story based on the limited detail we have been given.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    First you say that because god let Moses make a decision doesn't mean the he condoned it, then you say that if something goes against the purpose of god he will not allow it. It can't be both, so which is it? As it stands, if you believe that the Biblegod is the one true god then he is responsible for the contents of his book, and it seems very clear that he supports capturing women for the sole purpose getting wives as is recorded in the Jabeshgilead account.
    I am not having it both ways. God can stop anything that is against His purpose. I am not saying that what happened with the killing of the Midianites was against His purpose. God can work around the mistakes made by men and women. We only have to consider the stories of Abraham and Sarah and Jacob and others to see the way they took things into their own hands in order to fulfill God's promise. They did not have enough faith in God to wait and see. Instead, they came up with their own solution. If God did not stop them, we can ask the question; why did not God stop them? It was either in God's purpose for Him to let them get on with what they wanted to do, or else, God could work around the consequences. Only at times when it is totally against God's purpose and God does not want to permit the consequences, will God intervene and stop events from happening. We have to give God the credit to know what is going on and making the decision to allow something to happen or stop it. In the same way that we cannot possibly know all that is going on which could affect our lives, God knows and for those who love and fear God, then God can work in those things that affect people's lives such that (Romans 8:28); And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. It is hard to know the difference when something is as a result of time and chance or is the hand of God and providential care. That is why, I give God the credit for all the good that I receive and lay no charge against God for the difficult times in my life which are often of my own making. God knows that we can learn from difficult circumstances, yet God never tests us beyond our limitation. Jesus was tested to his limit with difficult times and Jesus was the stronger for resisting the temptations and the experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The points I am making have nothing to do with whether or not the virgin women eventually integrated into the Hebrew society. If someone murders your family and you eventually forgive them that has no bearing on the fact that the murderer is still guilty of killing your family. I have been reiterating this point over and over again, according to the Bible, the Hebrew men were allowed to take virgin women of their choosing to become sex partners for them, with the explicit approval of their god...that is the definition of sex slavery. We have no way of knowing whether or not those women adapted to their new lives or not, so it is a mute point. Just because a person resigns themselves to their lot in life as a captive wife, does not justify the action that was taken in acquiring a wife.
    I think we both agree that all war is an abominable thing and warfare is the consequence of men; not God. We must blame man for war. Wars have taken place all throughout man's history. God has not prevented wars, and will use wars that are in His purpose. God knows and can influence the outcome of a war to bring about His purpose in the short term and in the long term. Given God's involvement with His chosen race, God gave them additional commands. He did not prevent them from going to war. When it suited God's purpose for reprobates to be killed, and reprobates we do not consider to be Israel's neighbor, the people were not held to the commandment; "thou shalt not kill; and God took responsibility. I do not lay the charge against God that He is unjust. The Midianites was one of many reprobate societies which were guilty of idolatry and evil practices and were not going to change. God's removal of those people sooner than later was in His purpose. Where men failed God's instruction, God worked around.

    In the lives of God's chosen race, God expected them to keep to his high standards (as would be totally shown in the standard of Jesus, who fulfilled the law). We know that Moses wrote a bill of divorcement for the reason we are told (Matt. 19:8); Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: Jesus is saying that it was Moses who "suffered" it. Jesus does not say that God endorsed it. On the question of marriage, we know what the reply of Jesus was and whilst that does not answer all the questions we have about marriage, it does confirm the fact that marriage between a man and a woman was intended to be for life. Why do not men and women not remain together for life? We can simply say; because of the hardness of their heart. Even though Moses was able to write a bill of divorcement, does not mean that God approved. A divorcement does not change the fact that a man and woman were married and had become one and therefore they were not allowed to remarry. In God's eyes, they were still married. While the other partner remained alive, they were not allowed to re marry. Had either have had further sex with another partner, they would have committed adultery. We should not use examples in the Bible where the ideal partnership of one-on-one has not been met in order to say that God has changed His principles. The kings with there many wives and concubines is a case in point and we need not discuss that here. I do not see the principles of God changing, it is man that changes the principles to suit himself and so man is to blame.
    The one benchmark we have today is that of Jesus, and so by comparison, we know how well we match up to him and we all know that none of us do match up to Jesus.

    Once again Rose, I agree with the point (as far as it goes) that women taken in warfare are taken unwillingly as captives. Forced to have sex, is what we have evidence of in times of wars, but that is not to say, the Children of Israel were permitted to do the same. From all the restrictions placed on God's people by the laws that had been given them, we cannot conclude that soldiers had the automatic right to force women to have sex. Soldiers of the Children of Israel were expected to keep God's laws. God's high standards do not change. It is human kind that do not live up to God's standard who are to blame.

    Therefore, I do not see how we can blame God and say that God or God's word is supporting "sex slavery". These stories have been preserved for us to gain lessons from and the lesson is that it is not God to blame for what is the fault of man. We can only blame God for creating man that has led to the evil that man does.

    All the best

    David

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose



    Point #1. The LORD said (Num 31:2); Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: There is nothing to say here whether only males should be killed or whether women and children were to be killed as well. We might conclude from when God later gave the instruction to clear the Promised Land, Moses could have received the same instruction to kill all including the women and children.

    Point #2. The LORD did not tell Moses (as I have shown above) to kill just the males. Note that the text is split into two parts; the first part is; (7) And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; We do not know what the specific commandment was and so we we either guess or we make an educated deduction from other parts of scripture as in the case of cleansing the Promised Land The second part of the sentence is; and they slew all the males. This could have easily been made a sentence of its own and not separated by a semi-colon as it is in my Bible. All we are told is that they slew all the males and has nothing to do with the actual words commanded by God.

    Point #3. Moses is angry after finding out that the women and children had been saved, which is why I asked the question; why was Moses angry? I do not see that you answered the question correctly. Moses was angry because either his instruction to the officers in charge of the soldiers had been deliberately ignored or forgotten or there was a lack of clear instruction on the part of Moses. Moses was angry because his expectation of his (or God's) instructions had not been met. Those instructions, we rightly conclude (IMO) must have been to kill all males, women and children.

    You might not think it important, but I am using this as an example where we have to understand the text correctly. The Bible is economical with words and it is up to us to correctly the understand the message of the story based on the limited detail we have been given.
    Hello David,

    I am answering the text according to how it is written, I am not adding to it or taking away from it. If you believe the Bible is inspired by god then you must believe that what is written in the text is exactly what god wanted written. Numbers 31 says that Moses was angry because the soldiers left ALL the women alive, he then took steps to correct that by telling them to kill all the non-virgin women and male children, BUT he made an exception by telling the soldiers that they could keep alive the virgins for themselves. We read NO rebuke from god for the actions of Moses, but we do read where all the war booty including the virgins were divided up among the men.

    All of your conclusions in points 1,2, and 3 are just speculations on your part; whereas the points I made are in keeping with what is presented in the text. God allowed Moses to keep the virgin women as war booty and divide them up among the Hebrew men. This means that the Hebrews were acting in the same manner as men have acted throughout history, with the full support of their god.



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not having it both ways. God can stop anything that is against His purpose. I am not saying that what happened with the killing of the Midianites was against His purpose. God can work around the mistakes made by men and women.
    If it wasn't against his purpose then he allowed it. If the Biblegod is the creator of the universe as you think he is then he should be capable of having his wishes carried out EXACTLY the way he wants them to be carried out. The Bible is full of accounts where god struck people dead because they failed to obey him, so if Moses was in error during the Midianite affair god could have struck all the Midianites dead, or even struck Moses dead for disobedience. The bottom line is that going strictly by what the Bible says, god completely supported and gave laws for the taking of captive women to be sex partners for Hebrew men, thus my term "sex slave" is a perfectly accurate description.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I think we both agree that all war is an abominable thing and warfare is the consequence of men; not God. We must blame man for war. Wars have taken place all throughout man's history. God has not prevented wars, and will use wars that are in His purpose. God knows and can influence the outcome of a war to bring about His purpose in the short term and in the long term. Given God's involvement with His chosen race, God gave them additional commands. He did not prevent them from going to war. When it suited God's purpose for reprobates to be killed, and reprobates we do not consider to be Israel's neighbor, the people were not held to the commandment; "thou shalt not kill; and God took responsibility. I do not lay the charge against God that He is unjust. The Midianites was one of many reprobate societies which were guilty of idolatry and evil practices and were not going to change. God's removal of those people sooner than later was in His purpose. Where men failed God's instruction, God worked around.
    I am in perfect agreement that wars are caused by men, because I don't believe there is a Biblegod. But, if one believes that the Bible is an accurate account of the creator god interactions with man, then the biblical record tells us that god is the one who commanded the Hebrews to go to war against nation after nation. God even told the Hebrews that they had to utterly destroy every last man, woman and child in the "Promised Land" that he gave to them. I think you are laying the blame at the feet of man when according to the Bible it lies at the feet of god.

    If god has the power that the Bible affords him then nothing is impossible for him, so anything he wishes can be accomplished.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In the lives of God's chosen race, God expected them to keep to his high standards (as would be totally shown in the standard of Jesus, who fulfilled the law). We know that Moses wrote a bill of divorcement for the reason we are told (Matt. 19:8); Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: Jesus is saying that it was Moses who "suffered" it. Jesus does not say that God endorsed it. On the question of marriage, we know what the reply of Jesus was and whilst that does not answer all the questions we have about marriage, it does confirm the fact that marriage between a man and a woman was intended to be for life. Why do not men and women not remain together for life? We can simply say; because of the hardness of their heart. Even though Moses was able to write a bill of divorcement, does not mean that God approved. A divorcement does not change the fact that a man and woman were married and had become one and therefore they were not allowed to remarry. In God's eyes, they were still married. While the other partner remained alive, they were not allowed to re marry. Had either have had further sex with another partner, they would have committed adultery. We should not use examples in the Bible where the ideal partnership of one-on-one has not been met in order to say that God has changed His principles. The kings with there many wives and concubines is a case in point and we need not discuss that here. I do not see the principles of God changing, it is man that changes the principles to suit himself and so man is to blame.
    The one benchmark we have today is that of Jesus, and so by comparison, we know how well we match up to him and we all know that none of us do match up to Jesus.
    God allowed Moses to write a bill of divorce for men who wanted to get rid of their wives, but he didn't allow women the same privilege, which of course validates my claim of male bias. God gave laws that didn't allow the Hebrews to do other things like pick up sticks on the Sabbath or wear clothing made of wool and linen, so I don't think he had to allow men to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts.

    You keep saying that god is not to blame, but man is...that is like saying the underage child is to blame and not the parent. Who's in control anyway, god or man.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Once again Rose, I agree with the point (as far as it goes) that women taken in warfare are taken unwillingly as captives. Forced to have sex, is what we have evidence of in times of wars, but that is not to say, the Children of Israel were permitted to do the same. From all the restrictions placed on God's people by the laws that had been given them, we cannot conclude that soldiers had the automatic right to force women to have sex. Soldiers of the Children of Israel were expected to keep God's laws. God's high standards do not change. It is human kind that do not live up to God's standard who are to blame.

    Therefore, I do not see how we can blame God and say that God or God's word is supporting "sex slavery". These stories have been preserved for us to gain lessons from and the lesson is that it is not God to blame for what is the fault of man. We can only blame God for creating man that has led to the evil that man does.

    All the best

    David
    As I have shown the Hebrew soldiers were entirely within keeping the laws of god when they took captive women for sex partners after slaughtering their families, and if they got tired of them for any reason they could get rid of them. If you believe that the Bible is the word of god then there is no one else to blame but god, he explicitly gave laws to accommodate the lustful desires of the Hebrew men by allowing them to take captive women of their choosing...that is called "sex slavery".

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •