Doesn't anyone use computers anymore, and watch cool videos?!
-
Features
The Iron Chariots
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
Doesn't anyone use computers anymore, and watch cool videos?!
Could you provide a scriptural reference to that effect, please?
Again. Scriptural references, please? And also, what does that have to do with iron chariots. If the alleged inability to deal with iron chariots is the specific charge, then the lack of faith dealt specifically with that, in whoever's mind fabricated the alleged inability on God's part to deal with those chariots. Whatever else is irrelevant to the charge.
Doesn't matter. The question before us simply involves the charge of God's alleged inability to deal with the aforementioned iron chariots.
Common word? Words. Common words. Judah, God, Iron Chariots, Canaanites, mountainous region, inhabitants of the low plain.
Maybe I'm going about this all wrong. Let's take a closer, simpler look.
Judges 1:19 "And Jehovah continued with Judah, so that he took possession of the mountainous region, but he could not dispossess the inhabitants of the low plain, because they had war chariots with iron scythes."
Now, the words in Deuteronomy 20:1-4 weren't (or would that be wasn't? I suck at grammar) simply a reassuring gesture, it was very serious. They would remember what happened when Joshua and the spies were sent out (Numbers 13-14) They had to roam around in the wilderness until most of them had died for that breach of faith. Because Jehovah had a purpose for them and all they had to do was what he told them. That purpose was to produce a nation of Laws, to demonstrate the importance of a Messiah, and to produce that Messiah. To save all mankind from their own destruction. This effects us today, and forever. That's how important it was.
And by the way, Jehovah had destroyed Pharaoh's chariots with very little effort. (Exodus 14:6, 7; 15:4, 19; Joshua 24:6)
So, having said that, back to the specifics associated with Judges 1:19. Canaan, mountainous region, low plain inhabitants. But why even do that? Let me just ask you, do you think that God, if such a God existed, according to the alleged historical account of the Bible, as presented in this thread with the discussion that you and I have had thus far, is capable of dealing with iron chariots or not? That's it. That's all you need to address.
And by the way, I don't wish to seem impatient on your account, I'm grateful for your feedback. I'm just in a bit of a hurry and am trying to do this as quickly and easily as possible. I appreciate your feedback, I really do. Its . . . its a rare gem of a thing to me, it really is. I just need to get my balance and I'm terribly bad - rusty at this. I've been working on my website so long and still have much to do, but discussions like this to me are precious. Without having to deal with the usual personal issues and chips on shoulders. I just wanted to say that. It doesn't matter if we disagree, I appreciate your feedback.
And that goes for others here who I have had similar exchanges with.
Eldarion Lathria
Member
Give me an RPG and I can handle an iron chariot. Were I Baalzebul (the original name of the Hebrew god) I would be more worried about those atheists with hundred megaton nukes.
Eldarion Lathria
Eldarion Lathria
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,101
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
A hundred megaton nuke is overkill; any bronze- or iron-age army would be completely annihilated by a nuke of a few tens of kilotons.
Even a modern mega-city would suffer little more damage from a 100MT device than from a 1MT bomb; once the blast and heat are enough to destroy the buildings there is not much different in the outcome whether the overpressure is twice or a thousand times the load capacity of the structure.
You can do vastly more damage with fifty one-megaton bombs than with one one-hundred-megaton device; and for the expenditure of half the amount of tritium/deuterium.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Sounds like just another example of the Hebrew priest writers spin on a military disaster.
Whenever there's a setback - like losing a battle or getting conquered and getting their asses so completely kicked that they end up dead or in chains in an other nation for a generation - somehow it's never god's fault. It's always the fault of those 'faithless' Hebrews who weren't devout enough.
Sounds like someone trying to cover their ass or someone at the time, trying to keep their priestly job and not be lynched.
Ya, because they were fighting the same people who had the same weapons. What Joshua was saying was in regards to their being worried about them a generation previously and wasn't related.
They weren't "roaming" anywhere in Judges, they were kicking ass and taking names all throughout the region. Then they lost one fight and made the people they lost to yield at a later date. It's not related to anything that Joshua was doing.
Ya, God didn't have any kind of a problem with iron chariots. The Israelis did. That's because they were an effective military tool, which is why so many people of the time used them, including the Caananites.
Barbarian
Member
WTF there's no word of scythes in the original text. It's chariots of iron --> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/jdg1.pdf
connick
Junior Member
I referred to Judges 1:19 just the other day on Facebook. The people who run a LARP I attend (think Dungeon Masters from D & D) told the players we'd be getting a story update by a certain date but then they were delayed. They are essentially the "gods" of the game so I made a joke about this being their insurmountable iron chariot.
Now here I am with egg on my face because it appears that I have misinterpreted the verse. The translations I've read in the past usually say something like the 21st Century KJV:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron."
If it weren't for the convention of capitalizing "he" when referring to the god of the bible I might have argued that the above translation could be interpreted as god, not Judah", being unable to defeat the iron chariots. However, the lack of the capitalization and now reading several other translations it seems pretty clear that it was Judah who is associated with the male pronouns in the verse. Is there anyone here who can read the original Hebrew and confirm the verb's subject?
Now, if god was with Judah I don't see why he didn't help him destroy the chariots right then and there but, the god of the bible is a pretty big dick so it fits his M.O.
There are lots of good reasons not to believe the bible (e.g. the pages between the front and back cover) but now it looks like I have one less thing to joke about.
Now here I am with egg on my face because it appears that I have misinterpreted the verse. The translations I've read in the past usually say something like the 21st Century KJV:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron."
If it weren't for the convention of capitalizing "he" when referring to the god of the bible I might have argued that the above translation could be interpreted as god, not Judah", being unable to defeat the iron chariots. However, the lack of the capitalization and now reading several other translations it seems pretty clear that it was Judah who is associated with the male pronouns in the verse. Is there anyone here who can read the original Hebrew and confirm the verb's subject?
Now, if god was with Judah I don't see why he didn't help him destroy the chariots right then and there but, the god of the bible is a pretty big dick so it fits his M.O.
There are lots of good reasons not to believe the bible (e.g. the pages between the front and back cover) but now it looks like I have one less thing to joke about.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
I referred to Judges 1:19 just the other day on Facebook. The people who run a LARP I attend (think Dungeon Masters from D & D) told the players we'd be getting a story update by a certain date but then they were delayed. They are essentially the "gods" of the game so I made a joke about this being their insurmountable iron chariot.
Now here I am with egg on my face because it appears that I have misinterpreted the verse. The translations I've read in the past usually say something like the 21st Century KJV:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron."
If it weren't for the convention of capitalizing "he" when referring to the god of the bible I might have argued that the above translation could be interpreted as god, not Judah", being unable to defeat the iron chariots. However, the lack of the capitalization and now reading several other translations it seems pretty clear that it was Judah who is associated with the male pronouns in the verse. Is there anyone here who can read the original Hebrew and confirm the verb's subject?
Now, if god was with Judah I don't see why he didn't help him destroy the chariots right then and there but, the god of the bible is a pretty big dick so it fits his M.O.
There are lots of good reasons not to believe the bible (e.g. the pages between the front and back cover) but now it looks like I have one less thing to joke about.
Doesn't the bible say something like, "With god, all things are possible"?
And, as you point out, it says that Judah was with god, but one thing (defeating iron chariots) was not possible.
Still a contradiction, and still something to joke about.
In God's defence, though, I was watching a documentary on ESPN this past weekend and it seems that the battle in question coincided with the very first high school football game, so God was pretty busy at the time making sure the field goals got in.
Underseer
Contributor
You are misinterpreting that Bible passage because you are an evil atheist and have an obvious motive to get the Bible wrong.
Anyone who knows anything (particularly people who have God in their hearts), know that when the Bible says "because they had chariots of iron," it really means "because I like daffodils."
Therefore, when atheists claim that God could not stop that army because they had iron chariots, the atheists are lying, but then atheists always have to lie because that is what Satan tells them to do. [/christian]
Perspicuo
Veteran Member
It is irrelevant if the 'he' represents Judah or YHWH.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" in no place says that first the Lord was first with Judah, and then went to the restroom because he was, verily verily I say unto you, needed to relieve his bladder the exact moment Judah engaged the inhabitants of the valley. In no place does it state that the Lord's omnipresence is limited by 5 bathroom breaks per workday as per union contract.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" in no place says that first the Lord was first with Judah, and then went to the restroom because he was, verily verily I say unto you, needed to relieve his bladder the exact moment Judah engaged the inhabitants of the valley. In no place does it state that the Lord's omnipresence is limited by 5 bathroom breaks per workday as per union contract.
Ya, it's relevant. The whole point of it referencing Judah was that it means that God was with them metaphorically, the same way that he's with whatever football team you're playing for. That doesn't mean that God's actually the one making sure that the field goal goes through.
Derec
Contributor
Judah is the tribe, "he" refers to god.
Judah the person was long dead by the time of Judges, being a Genesis character (son of Jacob/Israel).
Yes, but in the Bible, especially that part of the Bible, god is supposed to be more than just a platitude. Compare Joshua 10 and the sun standing still.
Note that the iron chariot objection, as ubiquitous as it is (and is even used as name of ironchariots.org), is usually pretty tongue in cheek. I for one, have imagined that god must have trouble with iron because it has highest binding energy per nucleon (which is why stars can gain no energy by fusing iron nuclei and further elements get synthesized endothermically in supernovae, white dwarfs etc.) and that the reason god's involvement in the Biblical story wanes as the story goes on is because of increasingly widespread adoption of iron tools and weapons. Which is why in our modern world of iron being everywhere, from our modern chariots to our high-rises, god can only manage the occasional toast appearance or questionable healing.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,101
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
[USER][/USER]
So basically God is just one of Terry Pratchett's elves?
So basically God is just one of Terry Pratchett's elves?
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
That could easily be true, but as with so many passages from the bible it is ambiguous. We will probably never know what the author meant.
One question could be who is thought to have written the book of Judges? Was it J,E,P OR D? I think it might have been D. If so, how did D usually treat yahweh?
Are there other instances of D treating yahweh in that manner?