...words mean things, and the clear wording of certain passages of the Bible mean things that are contradictory to the message you're trying to push.
I'm not 'pushing' any message other than that the (stateless) Israelites were not an invading army, and the hostilities were instigated by actual armies/warrior tribes who thought they could bully God's chosen people - a big mistake. I certainly don't resile from the facts in the text which show that, with God's help, the Israelites engaged fearsomely in their bloody response to aggressors. Peaceful coexistence was never given a chance. But that's not because the Israelites wanted war.
You have made two clear claims in this thread that are inconsistent with what the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua claim.
Show me the 'claims' made in Deuteronomy and/or Joshua about the Israelites rejecting offers of peaceful coexistence? Time and time again, the Lord cautions the Israelites about not invading/trespassing on land which belongs to other people. Why? They don't have to steal land because God is going to GIVE them land.
- The Israelites only intended to peacefully settle in the lands without conflict.
- All Biblical wars are started by humans and God's intervention is always to hasten the end of that war.
It is my contention that the text of the Bible disagrees with you.
Start a derail thread.
Your justification for these claims is a passage in Deuteronomy 2. You referenced Deuteronomy 2:26, a passage that mentions "words of peace" that were sent to Sihon, the king of Heshbon. At first glance this passage would seem to agree with both claims.
You can go back to Exodus to find even more examples of peaceful intent. Again, you're arguing backwards. The Israelites fought their enemies, therefore they must have always been intent on war.
But it does not because this entire passage (Deuteronomy 2) is describing their journey, not their settling. The passage is quite clear that it was their original intent to pass through Heshbon, not settle there. To use this passage as support for "peaceful settlers" is grossly inappropriate. Until you bring up a passage that describes them preparing to settle and dwell (not just pass through) the land you have not justified these claims.
They had been preparing to settle and dwell in the Promised Land for decades/centuries.
Deuteronomy 2 is a list of places they intended to pass through on their way to the lands they intended to dwell in (or according to the story line, the lands that Yahweh had promised to them). If you want to argue that they intended to be "Peaceful Travelers" I would agree wholeheartedly with that statement, as it is supported in the text.
Of course you do and you must. They were not an army passing thru on its way to fight a war elsewhere. This ain't the Crusades. They were stateless, wandering refugees going to a land where they expected to live in peace. But on the way they encountered hostility which, in self-defense, they reciprocated.
There was no indicated premeditation on the part of Yahweh or the Israelites to fight anyone during their journey to the promised lands.
Exactly my point. Where is the text saying to Moses or Joshua, "
hey guys save your energy. Youre going need it for the great big Invasion Day battle when we attack Jericho.".
The wars they engaged in during their journey to the promised lands were started by the people who would not allow them to pass through peacefully, specifically Heshbon (Deut 2) and Bashan (Deut 3).
That's what I keep saying.
Peaceful Israelites being attacked by hostile warlords. And the Israelites awesome self-defense becomes the stuff of legend and word spreads - their reputation precedes them. Then comes Jericho, and by that stage the Israelites are effectively already 'at war' with all the enemies they have made.
The next couple of chapters are a bit of a history recap including yet another version of the 10 commandments. Deuteronomy 6 gets into the meat of what is to happen now that they are about to begin "peacefully settling" in the lands which Yahweh has promised them. Let's see how that process is described:
I know the text. Yadda yadda.
And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full...
In this passage the description of this FUTURE EVENT is not one of peaceful settlement. It is a description of the Israelites being given great cities that they did not build, houses full of loot, wells, vineyards and olive trees that were dug and planted by the efforts of others. Only the most tortured apologetic would argue that Yahweh just expected that these people who had worked so hard to create these things would just peacefully relinquish them to these peaceful settlers, giving them their houses, vineyards and olive trees.
Wealthy prosperous people live in houses they didn't build and enjoy gardens they don't tend to themselves. They don't clean their own swimming pools. It doesn't take 'tortured apologetics' to understand that the land of milk and honey was a vision of having wealth and prosperity such that you could pay other people to milk your cows and gather your grapes and press your olives.
That was never the intention.
Says the atheist who routinely asks folks like me how we could possibly know such things as what God 'intended'. You show me where God's ancient promise To His chosen people specifies that the promised land will have to be fought for.
The current residents of these cities were to be exterminated and their property would become that of the Israelites. All of this was planned by Yahweh before it ever happened.
Of all the bible verses we've seen so far in this thread, none back this claim. The Canaanites could have made peace with the Israelites. But they chose their own fate when they opted for war.
But lest we be accused of making unwarranted assumptions about how Yahweh planned for all of this to go down let's just double-check. Deuteronomy 7 (the next chapter) provides us with a clear picture of what the intention is, and this plan is provided before anyone begins fighting.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
Yep. Greater and mightier than thou. (Think David and Goliath)
Which side was the aggressor?
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Citing bible verses where the war has already started doesn't make your case.
Of course war is hell. Of course the doctrine of total war is in full view.
Preferring peace doesn't mean you're a pacifist.
Why would we expect God to have the Israelites pull their punches? So the war can go on a little bit longer than necessary?
The passage goes on to justify why this is necessary (because if you don't utterly destroy them they'll corrupt you and turn you away from following Yahweh).
The Canaanites were not very nice. Nor the Amallekites. Nor the Philistines. Nor the.....
I understand that if you want to believe in a Yahweh who is all loving and noble it's difficult to reconcile such a position with passages like this,
There's nothing irreconcilable about God's love and His wanting to hasten the end of wars started by wicked people. Politesse might find such chapters difficult but not me.
and with passages that regulate the practice of slavery without condemning it. I get that. I'm not burdened with this sort of agenda so I get to read the book with all its warts and accept that it just says what it says.
The bible DOES condemn slavery. So any other passing references to the practice - servants, servitude, bondage, wage slavery, selling yourself into slavery, slaving over a hot stove, slave to love...are just that.
The bible says there will always be poor people. That's NOT and endorsement!!!
With all of its pearls of wisdom it is still a sometimes barbaric legacy of a time in our history when a very different zeitgeist reigned supreme.
Zeitgeist? Really? More people passively accept the existence of slavery today in 2020 than the Zeitgeist of Greco/Roman biblical times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag...y is a term,dependence is total and immediate.
You wanna do something about slavery? Trust me. The bible is the least of your problems
