Message of the Bible

Yes Admin I apologize - thank you.

(deleted... I now understand the flow of the posts. This one was unecesary. Apologies. -Yaro)[This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-06-2003]

*BUMP*Sorry for being so demanding. Yet no satisfactory answer has surfaced. Each one presented has been well contested and/or refuted. An answer to this issue should be found. One side must conceed to the other.Or perhapse I am just wishfull thinking?

Hi Yaro,In preparing for a seminar on the OT concept of 'Holy War' I came across this reference regarding instructions for Holy War in Deuteronomy 21:10-1410 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.I find this reference horrendous too. The authors attempt to justify these actions by the language they are using, but, while this may take attention away (for the believer) from the atrocities of the Israelites, there are some obscene practices here.Granted, we are talking about a very long time ago, and in a much different society where owning women was an acceptable part of that society, so perhaps we should not expect these people to have the same moral values that we do. Perhaps their morality is simply an example of the general state of society of the time these texts were written?We also have to remember that these atrocities recorded in the Bible may be pure fiction, an ideological view of history.When you consider that the bloodiest battles, and the most horrendous atrocities, (IMO) are found in the Joshua conquest narratives, and these narratives have been totally contradicted by the material evidence, then that these stories did not happen is a distinct possibility.Of course these laws would apply if the Israelites ever conquered any town, but I don't think the Israelites were really that much of a force in the ancient near east, there is certainly no evidence to support the Conquest narratives or the King David exploits.The Israelites made a rather peaceful entrance on to the world stage, emerging from within Canaanite society and not arriving from Egypt as a massive army.So I think these claims are more ideological than historical.Brian.

A well thought out and informative reply Brian. I apreciate it. You and CA have given some great historical context to the stories and confirmed my suspisions, that the attrocities commited in the bible were not ordained by god, necissarly, but rather done by men in gods name.Willow Tree seems to have given up on this thread and that is a shame , because I would love to see a refutation of this from a christians perspective. Basicaly, the horrible actions were a cultural product, and not orders or practices god condoned (as the bible claims).

Hi Yaro,I have some spare time at work so I thought you might be interested in some information from a couple of overheads I have produced for a seminar this week and next week.Regarding the exaggerated victories of Joshua in the Bible, there are many similar examples from non-biblical texts, here are two that actually refer to Israel.The first one is from the Merneptah Stele dated to c. 1207 BCE, the Israel mentioned in the stele may not be the biblical Israel but the majority of scholars believe it is and this is usually referred to as the first mention of Israel as an ethnic group outside of the Bible. The princes are prostrate, saying: "Mercy!"
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehenu;
Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkelon;
seized upon is Gezer;
Yeno`am is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified;
everyone who was restless has been bound
by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt;
Be-en Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re;
mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life
like Re every day. You can see that the claim that Israel’s ‘seed’ is not, and that it has been laid waste is an over exaggeration. There is debate over the meaning of ‘seed’ it could be offspring or it could be grain, but you can get the idea from the complete text that utterly destroying the enemy was a common claim.It is repeated again in the Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone.I will just post a few extracts from this inscription because it is a fairly large text, a couple of examples will suffice anyway. The Mesha Stele is actually a very good text for understanding Near Eastern society in general and it has a few examples that are useful for understanding the worldview of the Bible authors. The complete text is accessible at many websites if you are interested. And I made this high-place for Kemosh in Qarcho . . . because he has delivered me from all kings, This is the same sort of idea that we find in the Bible with the Israelites giving credit to God for victory over an enemy. If a king triumphs it is only because God is with them, and this belief was the same for the Moabites, also the mention of ‘high-place’ is very common in the Bible. Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Kemosh was angry with his land. Again a reflection of a concept fond in the Bible, a set back is explained by the Nation’s particular deity being upset for one reason or another, Israel is consistently informing us that she deserves everything she got from YHWH because of her transgressions. They deserved to wander the desert for forty years because they made a Golden Calf, and the generation that left Egypt did not deserve to enter the Promised Land. (Of course Joshua earned his right) But Kemosh restored it in my days. The god gets credit again, a common theme in near eastern society, it isn’t the armies that gained victory it is the god who won through. And Kemosh said to me, "Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. This is particularly relevant to the discussion, not only did the God of the Bible give horrendous instructions for war, the ‘ban’ was simply an accepted tactic of the day. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout his campaign against me; and Kemosh drove him away before my face. A final quote that reinforces the fact that many societies, other than Israel, credited victories to their God. Many Bible verses support this idea that victory is not because the armies fought so well, it is because God was with them that they won, ultimately God delivers the enemy into the hands of the victor.Here are some examples from Joshua 10:30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.It should be remembered that YWHW was also seen as a warrior,Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.Psalm 124:8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. Exodus 14:14 The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still. The idea of a Warrior God played an important role in Israel’s settlement period. There is a collection of Israelite poetry that has been lost called ‘the Songs of the Wars of Yahweh, which may have contained songs of praise to the great divine warrior who drove out the inhabitants of the lands that Israel came up against.So you can see that slaughtering of what appear to be innocent victims was not unique to the God of the Bible.I would agree with your conclusion that these references in the Bible are more a cultural product rather than a direct communication from God. Indeed, if Israel had ever had an army to be reckoned with then these actions would really have been expected of them and would not have been a surprise to anyone living in that area.Brian.

I have no excuse for abandoning this topic. Sorry.Yaro, believe it or not I feel the exact same way you do about the horror of the O.T. But you will NEVER understand until you understand what happened in the Garden of Eden, this is the context from which all the horror is derived.Because of the failure of Adam and Eve all of mankind is born separated from God, we are born in a state of what is called "original sin". This state of being has God against us from the moment we are born and the Bible does not debate the fairness of this it simply declares it.The serpent, who is representative of Satan got what he wanted. Adam and Eve ate from the tree and instantly two things happened. 1) Adam/Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, 2) Satan gained temporary ownership of the world and its inhabitants.God, in response to Adam/Eve disobedience barred them from the Garden which represents their connection to the Source of Life - God. From that day forward they began dying. God in mercy delayed his judgement and killed an animal to cover them which is the first type of what Jesus would do on the cross thousands of years later. The point being that blood must be spilled to atone for sin.Adam/Eve and their descendants now armed with the knowledge of good and evil, and banished from the Source of Life, and living in the domain of Satan begin to demonstrate that having knowledge of good and evil apart from God guarantees endlessly embracing the evil. There is no power in this knowledge to make or compel a person to choose the good, this is why God did not want them to have it.Through Moses, God adds His law, which said law is a standard of right and wrong , good and evil. Again, what is the first thing that happens when Moses comes down from the Mount (Sinai) ? He takes the tablets that contained the Ten Commandmaents and smashes them in anger as a response to seeing what the people have been doing since he was gone. This typifies what man does with God's law : he breaks it immediately. Why ? Because there is no power in the knowledge of good and evil to choose the good over the evil. Man is still separated from God living under the jurisdiction of Satan.This is the context for all the horror of the O.T.God wants it known that He meant what He said in the Garden of Eden - "if you touch of the fruit of the tree ....you will surely die"God has the right to judge people in this context and He does.Over 3 million people who came out of Egypt during the Exodus died in the wilderness and never made it to the promised land (except for 2 and persons under 19 years of age) All of these people were God's people who died for not believing what God said about inheriting the promise land.God wants it known that whatever He says will come to pass - that you can trust Him invariably.What about those children who insulted the Prophet and got killed by the bears ?The Prophet spoke for God. He was the most feared person wherever he went. When the Prophet spoke it was equivalent to God Himself speaking. The Prophet reacted angrily to the childrens taunts and cursed them. Then the bears came out and devoured them.God wants it known that whatever He says comes to pass - even to the hurt of those innocent children. I realize the obvious "couldn't God teach His lesson without having to kill children" I guess not - if you think about it objectively it really gets His point across. Even if the Prophet cursed them in the heat of an embarrassing moment God kept the word spoken by his prophet.God wants it known that whatever He says will happen - this is why He told on Himself and allowed this event to be recorded in His book. God could of easily omitted this from the record and no one today would ever know. But He didn't because He wants it known that whatever He says will happen.When a person ascertains and realizes that God does what He says, that He can be trusted, this gives a person the basis to have faith.God wants it known that if He without variation keeps His word in things pertaining to hurt/evil the negative (if you will) THEN HOW MUCH MORE will He keep His word in all the good things.God wants it known that His Son is the Second Adam who finished His course and defeated Satan, and that on this basis God can now pour out the goodness promised in the New Testsament to everyone who looks to Him by faith and trusts that He will do what He says.Source of theology information : Dr.Gene Scott

Ahhh, so god thinks that Adam and Eve represent all of the people living on the earth so he sees no problems with ordering the murder/rape of thousands/millions of people. Of course god created "satan" so he is actually the one responsible for tricking Adam and Eve but hey it’s ok because god admitted his vindictiveness in the OT.

hey WT.back from vacation.I will answer your last post soon.

Willowtree,The Bible makes no claims about being the word of God. It is written there that a person, Yeshua, often called Jesus, is the word of God. It is also written there that, while the Scripture cannot be broken, it is not to be used as a direct guide to eternal life. It is to be used to find one's way to Yeshua, the Word of God, who in turn gives eternal life. This "eternal life," in turn is defined as "knowing the one true God, Jehovah, and His Son, Yeshua."So, the message found in the Bible is this. Use the commands and wisdom found in the writings to get to Yeshua. Become His sheep, learn to know His voice, do what He says (keep His commandments), and you will come to know His Father, Jehovah. Hearkening to the voice of Jehovah, to keep and do all He commands, will cause you to have abundant life, freedom from the power of evil, and empowerment from the Holy Spirit to heal, do miracles, cast out demons, etc.Meanwhile, searching the Scriptures thinking that in them you will find life is a fatal mistake. They are plain in their statement that "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" leads only to death. The tree of life, the alternative, is a Person, and the only way anyone will live is "walking humbly with their God." So, anyone who chooses life over death, and takes the Bible in hand to fulfil that choice, is seeking the companionship of a Person, who will speak to them and tell them what to do to overcome evil and live. It is written in Scripture that evil is empowered by rebellious angels, whose works can only be frustrated in this manner.Examination of the Bible with any other agenda shows the book to be worthless, full of contradictions and confusion. This may be by design.I encourage anyone to read the Bible with this prayer: "I am reading this because I want to have a heart to heart conversation with Yeshua. Any help from spirits committed to truth and love will be welcomed and put to good use. Amen."Those who do not want to meet Yeshua personally will find the Bible a foolish or dangerous book.

Sorry for the long wait. Holdays and all Can you site the scripture where it says that the prophets words were equivelent to gods words etc. Just out of curiosity is all. Sp basically god can be a tyrant if he wants? He can make killing kids a good thing?See this is the point I was makeing above that you again ignore. How does god doing it make it a good thing? Why is god telling people to force girls into marrige, or kill babies, make those acts good an holly?And don't say God can do anything, because you yourself admit that he can't. God can do anything can't he!? So that means he dosn't have to kill the kids. Or have the virgins raped, etc. So it was a good thing to kill 42 kids, because it made a point? What are you on! Murder is murder, and killing 42 kids for calling some dude baldy is unconsionable. Sorry. I'm just not buying your argument.If god can do anything, he dosn't have to kill anyone. Can you site the scripture that supports this assertion? Last time I read god made the flood to end wickedness, didn't seem to work did it?And Adam didn't die that very day. I don't care how you want to streach that one. I don't know about Dr. Gene scott, but none of this stuff is in the bible I read.So, when the isrealite soldiers killd the babies, old people, and forced the virgins into wedlock with their sweaty, horney, murderous, men. god made that good and right? yes or no.And when 42 kids were murderd by bears for being, well, kids. God made that good? yes or no.And in the Jebesh-Giliad scenario. God made kidnapping women and forcing them into marrige good? yes or no.See, it's very simple really. The fact is god can do whatever he wants right? So basicaly, it's his choice if he wants to go about things in a mean spireited, lets kill lots of people kind of way, or a happy lets all get along sort of afair.I mean, if god wanted to he could have just had the isrealites give the cannanites lots of big fluffy bunies, and hugs and kisses to win them over. Right?So basicaly, god chose to cause murder and warfare. Cuz that's his thing. He dug it.Remember, God can do anything. Which means all options are open to him. Which means if he chooses to prove a point by murdering 42 kids or writting it out in the clouds, is totaly up to him.What I'm saying is, god seems to like killing a whole lot. Cuz certaily he could think of other ways.

I would like to address Willows statement regarding the garden of Eden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Willows quote," you will NEVER understand until you understand what happened in the Garden of Eden ."Yes,
Delve more deeply into other ancient societies that also have the tree or axis mundi or sacred pole to understand this more clearly, You state we need to understand the happenings in the Garden of Eden in order to fully understand God.I say you need to more fully understand the ancients and where this distorted myth comes from.Also,Lets say there is a God, this supernatural being or creative force of the universe is above mankind and capable of creating the universe so this supreme being must be beyond our human short comings, yet, the Bible seem to make God human with humans emotions as in,Anthropomorphism,
In the history of religion, anthropomorphism refers to the depiction of God in a human image, with human bodily form and emotions, such as jealousy, wrath, or love.I also found something of interest in the book ,"The Sacred And The Profane."To understand the mind set of ancient man perhaps this will make their view of the world around them more understandable.One of the outstanding characteristics of tradition in societies is the opposition that they assume between "their "inhabited territory and the"unknown space" that surrounds them.The former is their world, cosmos.Everything outside it is no longer a cosmos but a sort of "other world" a "foreign chaotic space" peopled by ghosts, demons, and souls of the dead.The space they occupy becomes sacred in a sense, it fixes the limits and establishes the order of the world.( they) inhabit).Then we must perform the consecration of a place a cosmic axis, the sacred pole then the territory becomes inhabitable and transformed into a world.According to the [the Achilpa] stories, their world was created by a deity named Numbakula. He not only made the world; he also created the ancestors of the people and lived with them for a time in order to establish their way of life.When he had finished his work of creation,
Numbakula madea polefrom the trunk of a gumtree.Upon anointing the pole with blood, he climbed it and disappeared into the sky.The Achilpa kept the pole as their most sacred possession and it stood at the center of their lives, reminding them of the ways that had been established for them by Numbakula.They used the pole to direct their nomadic movements.When they were ready to move to a new location, they consulted the pole and moved in the direction in which it leaned.It was always taken with them and carefully protected. Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen, who lived among the Achilpa for a time, described what happened once when the sacred pole was broken.The people were very disturbed and confused and seemed to wander about aimlessly for a time until finally they all lay down on the ground to await the death they thought was to come. . . .The Achilpa, by carrying their sacred pole with them and by erecting it wherever they camp, are asserting the meaning and order revealed by the deity Numbakula upon the temporary space in which they live.It is the point from which all their activities gain orientation. It signals the basic distinctions which give them identity and by which they cohere. It is the channel through which they may continue to communicate with Numbakula, who lives in the sky. And through it Numbakula can communicate with the people, telling them, among other things, which way to travel. Even though it moves with them, the pole is the fixed point, the point of origin, the point giving meaning about which their lives are ordered.Seen in this way it is little wonder the Achilpa were so upset and even submitted to death when their sacred pole was broken.Symbolically they werecut off from their deity,from their heritage, from the order and orientation of their world. Without this center, they were symbolically in a state of chaos. Their aimless wandering and submission to death show the degree to which they found the meaning of their lives and livelihoods linked to their sacred pole. It was no ornament, no vacuous symbol, no superstition. It was the center and source of meaning in their whole way of life.The axis Mundi or cosmic pillar can be found in other cosmological images and religious beliefs. Holy sites and sanctuaries are believed to be situated at the center of the world, temples are replicas of the cosmic mountain "link" between heaven and earth. Foundations of temples descend deep into lower regions.The ziggurat was probably not the place of public worship or ceremonies, but rather the house of God. Through the ziggurat, the gods could be close to mankind. The cults performed in the ziggurats were limited to the priests, and their assignments were to provide for all the needs of the gods.
There are several ideas about the symbolic meaning behind the ziggurats. One is that they were reconstruction's of the mountain temples that the new inhabitants to Mesopotamia used to erect while they lived in either the Taurus (now Turkey) or the Zagros Mountains (now Iran).
Another theory tells that the ziggurat was a reconstruction of the cosmic mountain from the creation myths.
A third theory tells us that the ziggurat was built as a bridge between heaven and earth. All three theories can be true at the same time, at least in part.
The same tradition is found among the Hebrews, The rock of the Temple in Jerusalem reaches deep into the "Tehom" the Hebrew equivalent of the Babylonian Apsu. and just as Babylon had the Gate of Absu the temple had the "mouth of the tehom."They symbolize chaos of waters, Our world is always situated at the center.Palestine and Jerusalem all present an imago mundi, the holy place represents the earth, the Holy of Holies, the heavens.The imagined heavens has its counterpart as this center sacred space on earth, the image of the universe in the center of the world , the religious man sought to live as close to this center as possible, but then where ever that man is then there must be his center.His living in this center assured his communicating with the gods.So as the wandering Achilpa carried their sacred pole so where ever they lived there was their center.A universe comes to birth from its center a core, a central point, like an embryo grows from the navel, so God created the world from the navel, and from there it spread out in all directions. The Hebrew traditions state and "so the world was created beginning with Zion."I was reading this web page and a thought occurred to me........
Page not found - North Park University
King Shoshenq held tremendous power, and the accounts of his massive invasion represent the first recorded use of cavalry in battle (Sassoon 291, 710). The aggressive attack also resulted in the permanent removal of Jerusalem's sacred temple treasures (including the Ark of the Covenant), which had a tremendous impact on the nation. Notice,
attack also resulted in the permanent removal of Jerusalem's sacred temple treasures (including the Ark of the Covenant)This reminds me of the story of the Achilpa, by carrying their Sacred pole with them(not unlike the Hebrews,who carried there sacred Ark everywhere with them). And by erecting it wherever they camp, are asserting the meaning and order revealed by the deity Numbakula upon the temporary space in which they live. It say it had a tremendous impact on the nation, in like manner I remember the impact it had on the Achilpa.The Achilpa were so upset and even submitted to death when their sacred pole was broken. Symbolically they were cut off from their deity, from their heritage, from the order and orientation of their world. Without this center, they were symbolically in a state of chaos. Their aimless wandering and submission to death show the degree to which they found the meaning of their lives and livelihoods linked to their sacred pole.I just thought that I saw some similarities here.The Sun Dance Ceremony
Held annually in the summer the central pole is erected, representing the world axis, atop is a buffalo skull.Everything is the sacred geography of the sun dance is significant and aligned directionally on an east-west axis. It is based on the concept of sacrifice, not unlike,MedicJudaismand Christianity.The warrior dancer attached skewers through their chest muscles thus manifesting the link to the heart of the sacred pole or cosmic axis. "The center pole contains all the power of the universe and the dancers are connected to the pole by an invisible cord coming from the tree and penetrating into their heart. "Now it is important to note that their ancient myths represented links to the Celestial world.This is in response to Willows comment," you will NEVER understand until you understand what happened in the Garden of Eden ."Exactly, we wont.

The Celtic Tree of LifeWhen a tribe cleared the land for a settlement, they always left a great tree in the middle, known in Ireland as the "crann bethadh," or Tree of Life, that embodied the security and integrity of the people. Chieftains were inaugurated at the sacred tree, for, with its roots stretching down to the lower world, its branches reaching to the upper world, it connected him with the power both of the heavens and the worlds below. One of the greatest triumphs a tribe could achieve over its enemies was to cut down their mother tree, an outrage punishable by the highest penalties.While reading the book." When the Drummers Were Women," it stated that when nomadic tribes would clear the land they would always leave one tree, a tree that had been struck by "lightning," from this tree the shaman would also make a drum, when you look at lightning what do you see?Lightning also has branches like the tree.This speaks to me of a Lightning/god making contact with the earthly tree, a connection of sorts. God communicating.It is also interesting to note that ancient man saw the Gods as storm gods,
Thunder and lightning were the anger of GodOdinPrometheus, the lightning-god appears as the originator of civilization.In Norse mythology, also, the gods were said to have made the first man out of the ash-tree Yggdrasil.anthropomorphism ,gives human traits to aspects of nature, such as thunder, lightning, and the universe itself.Anthropocentrism is the basis for the theistic religions, those which assume a personal deity or deities. At the core of anthropocentrism is the view that there exists a human-like intelligence (or intelligences) behind the universe.[This message has been edited by Stormdancer, 01-03-2004]

This discussion clears up my confusion. I mistakenly believed, out of a hopefully temporary failure of logical thinking, that every year the sidereal year would always end at the same time of sidereal day. Can't explain how I fell into this misconception. I'm better now!In checking out a couple of the links and doing some hardcopy reading I found that the tropical year from one spring equinox to the next and the sidereal year measured against the fixed stars differs in length by 20 minutes. The difference is due to precession. 20 minutes is a huge amount and startled me. I did some quick calculations and discovered that every 72 years or so the constellations move by a whole days worth at the spring equinox, approximately a degree. That means that every 2100 years the spring equinox changes constellation, so that in the time of Christ the spring equinox occurred with the Sun in Ares, not Pisces. Wow!While I knew about precession of the equinoxes, it never impressed itself upon me that it was so incredibly rapid. I had it classified in my mind as a "millions of years" type of process.--Percy {Hmmm. This is certainly interesting. I appear to have posted to a thread I've never read. I'll leave this here for now so I can figure out whether it's a bug or user error, and I'll repost this in the correct thread. --Percy}
[This message has been edited by Percy, 01-03-2004]

Thank you for this comprehensive reply.I would like to point out that this entire essay begins with an assumption of bias, this bias assumes the creation account a MYTH.This assumption of myth is then evidenced by the similarities in other civiizations fact or fiction that contain a "center of being" like the Tree of Life or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?The CLAIM of Genesis is that it is the PROTECTED account of what happened, protected by God as His version of how things were and went. (what validates the claim to be true is another subject, but for purposes of this discussion I ask it to be assumed.)In this case, as in all cases when God is communicating what He wants known, His subjective views become the objective truth. Therefore if the creation account of Genesis is true, then this would logically explain every other similar account fact or fiction. This also explains why these stories have common denominators and it explains their differences in that the Genesis account is the protected version of facts and the others are unguarded by God as they evolve over time and change.The existence of similar stories in other civilizations fact or fiction and the threads of common denominators only say one thing : There is a source, a beginning of the central and common facts therein. That source is the account of Genesis from which all the others flow.I believe my opponent wants to somehow connect the existence of stories and themes similar to the creation account in Genesis to also mean that the Garden of Eden is a myth. How does the existence of what your post laboriously references evidence the claims of Genesis to be a myth ?Look forward to your response.