What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

cloudyday2 · Sep 22, 2019

@cvanwey and @2PhiloVoid and anybody else still reading,

Another angle to Numbers 31 is that Moses was married to Zipporah the daughter of Jethro, a PRIEST of Midian.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 23, 2019

cvanwey said:
Is there a possibility this chapter does not entail God's directive? It's an easy question. If the answer is 'yes', then an entire can of worms is opened. You know this.... If the answer is 'no', then please enlighten all of us, as to why my provided analysis is unsound?

Ok. A little birdie has insinuated that I might not be "nice enough" to some of my interlocutors. Therefore, here is my attempt to slightly rectify that ...*ahem*...shortcoming on my part.

You want me to "concede" that there is a possibility that Numbers 31, or some portion thereof, does not entail God's directive? Ok. I'll just say that, yes, there is always the possibility, however remote to me it may seem to be, that it could be the case that "God didn't completely inspire this chapter," particularly IF we take the various implications of the Documentary-Hypothesis into our view OR if we take into fuller consideration what Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan (both apologists on this very topic) say about how they think Moses may have overrun the supposed directive he received from God for "harassing the Midianites."

So, there.

depositphotos_13917372-stock-illustration-cartoon-can-of-worms.jpg

2PhiloVoid · Sep 23, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
I read the chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra in the ESV translation and I didn't see any mention of "pagan", so it must be something in your translation. What translation are you reading?

First off, great work, Cloudy! Whether or not we end up agreeing, I very much appreciate that you took the time to work on this like you have. I can respect that.

As for my translation choices, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference, but I'm reading the Hebrew-Greek Key Study bible – NASB, and the NKJV, so there very well could be some seeming variance in 'how' the texts read. The NASB seems to use the term “foreign” in translation of the Hebrew term נָכְרִיּ֖וֹת [nokriy] rather than “pagan,” and I can see how the connotative insinuations can seem doused as we read if we just passively leave everything on the level of English equivolency, which I refuse to do.

So, we have this term (adjective?)

Strong's Hebrew: 5237. נָכְרִי (nokri) -- foreign, alien

...and in recognition of this term were going to realize that, in the context of the passage involving Ezra's monologue here and relatedly so in the book of Nehemiah, the implication is that the women involved were not good little gals from next door, but idolatrous foreign women who may not quite have known that proper worship doesn't include, maybe—who knows what: things not appropriate to marriage and family (...like may just a tiny bit of child-sacrifice here and there or an openness to threesomes in the bedroom, or who know what, in addition to their simply not realizing that Yahweh is the Lord, the One and Only Lord, God. All stuff that, of course, in today's Pluralistic maze, we all tend to think: Meh! So what!) Regardless, this overall 'foreign' context comes by way of the textual fact that we find that the concept of “abominations”-----rather than genetic stock---as being the first and primary problem denoted in all of this stuff which Ezra cites against the Israelite men. Some of which very much reflects the same kinds of “goings on” in Numbers chapters 22, 23, 24, 25 AND 31.

BTW, Wikipedia on Ezra says that some is in Aramaic and some is in Hebrew and some is first person and some is third person. This makes me suspect that what we have is a commentary and a scribe who carelessly mixed the comments with the original. The commentary might need to be extracted from Ezra, because they might have been added decades or centuries later by somebody who thought he understood Ezra but didn't.

Yes, I've heard that too and while it may be true, I don't think it defrays the overall fact that we're dealing with a text that implies idolatrous guilt on the part of the women involved and a temptation and scandal for the men involved.

Also see Ezra 9:12 RSV:
10 “And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken thy commandments, 11 which thou didst command by thy servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. 12 Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.’
Bible Gateway passage: Ezra 9:10-12 - Revised Standard Version

Right, and all of this ties back to the Law that prohibited the Israelits from intermingling and marrying with 'pagans,' but specifically pagans who refused to conform to the Israel's worship of Yahweh. All of which basically blows away much of what I'm going to call the “genetic fallacy” in this case, that all of this prohibition was because the foreigners were of another bloodline. No, it's most, if not really only, because of their ABOMINATIONS, not their bloodlines.

Notice how the sparing of virgins in Numbers 31 was a deviation from Ezra's characterization of God's instructions.

In response to your hint about Nehemiah here is the passage Nehemiah 13:23-27 RSV:
23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab; 24 and half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but the language of each people. 25 And I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless foreign women made even him to sin. 27 Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?”
Bible Gateway passage: Nehemiah 13:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Yes, sparing the virgins is a deviation.............but it seems like an act of sensical mercy since the other option was, death, not pluralistic respect. Moreover, those virgins were NOT going to be given the choice of worshipping as they saw fit. No, with their families removed from the scene, they were going to be expected to conform to Israel's worship. Harsh, yes; possibly putting them, however, on the side of eternal salvation, yes.

Nehemiah seems to be ambiguous. The language issue is mentioned first, and that sounds like cultural chauvinism which can be a handmaiden of genocide. Later Solomon's sins (idolatry) are blamed on foreign wives. And of course there is mention of the commandment mentioned in Ezra that disagrees with the sparing of virgins in Numbers 31.

Yes, and this "Sin of Solomon" motif is, let's say, an inferred golden thread that runs through the whole reason Israel broke down morally and spiritually, eventually leading into Exile in Babylon.

Anyway, as far as 'genocide' is concerned, I don't think the Midianites were being subject exclusively to genocide, nor for the reasons of “genetics.” Besides, has anyone noticed that the Midianites were NOT originally under the ban that the Canaanites were under? But now the Midianites are getting smacked.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 23, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
@cvanwey and @2PhiloVoid and anybody else still reading,

Another angle to Numbers 31 is that Moses was married to Zipporah the daughter of Jethro, a PRIEST of Midian.

....yes, Jethro, the very same dude who played a direct role in influencing Moses to set up a "court system" within the provinces of God's Law (Exodus chapter 18).

How ironic, ay? And again, there's the fact that the Midianites weren't originally being scorned by God, but Balak and Balaam came along...despite the useful presence of a talking donkey ... and helped to change that course for the folks of Midian. How sad.

In fact, if we look at the New Testament, even in the book of Revelation, the whole Balaam thing, along with this Moabite and Midianite fiasco................seems to have left a lasting legacy.

2 Peter 2:15
They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness.

Jude 1:11
Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

Revelation 2:14
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.

cloudyday2 · Sep 23, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, sparing the virgins is a deviation.............but it seems like an act of sensical mercy since the other option was, death, not pluralistic respect. Moreover, those virgins were NOT going to be given the choice of worshipping as they saw fit. No, with their families removed from the scene, they were going to be expected to conform to Israel's worship. Harsh, yes; possibly putting them, however, on the side of eternal salvation, yes.

Why spare young girls and not young boys? Mercy isn't a good explanation for this gender bias. Imagine the Israelites strangling the 2 year-old Midianite boys while tenderly drying the tears of the 2 year-old Midianite girls.

2PhiloVoid said:
Anyway, as far as 'genocide' is concerned, I don't think the Midianites were being subject exclusively to genocide, nor for the reasons of “genetics.” Besides, has anyone noticed that the Midianites were NOT originally under the ban that the Canaanites were under? But now the Midianites are getting smacked.

It would be nice to know more about the Midianites. I've been doing some reading and one theory is that Yahweh was the God the Midianites, and the Hebrews were a tribe a Midianites. If this was the case then how could the Midianite women have led the Israelites to worship Gods other than Yahweh? I suppose it is possible but not very compelling.

Nihilist Virus · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
WRONG! Similar to what we've "talked about" above, if God is Holy, then you have to know what Holiness even means, and if you don't, you can't critique it. Holiness is like Fire; you either become like fire, OR ... not. And you know what happens if we don't. We get burned instead of warmed and comforted.

Uh.....no? WRONG! Adam and Eve were never 'perfect' in any kind of way that would even begin to equate to God's own perfect nature. No, they started as 'innocent' yet limited human beings (according to the Eden Account). They weren't "perfect" as God was perfect, so let's not equivocate our terms here, just like we wouldn't if we were talking about the term 'theory' in the context of science. Where in the world have you gotten your theology and your method of interpretation, pray tell?

Adam was perfect, that is, without sin. At creation, the amount of sins committed by Adam and God were the same. So they were absolutely comparable in that context.

Again, you obviously don't understand the biblical meaning of Holiness, nor do you understand the directives God gives His people about "being Holy because He is Holy"! A failure to "be Holy" comes with a price-tag and possible repercussions: THERE'S THE RATIONALE!

Obviously, this rationale of God's not only doesn't comport with today's supposed moral sensibilities, but despite the Anti-Christian RE-rationalization against God's Rationale, we find the core of the matter isn't that we think it's wrong.......but rather that we just .... don't ... like it.

The upshot and the moral of the tale is this: If the Medianites had wanted to enjoy peace and blessing along with the Israelites, then they should have welcomed them with open arms instead of doing all of the scheming and other dastardly trickery that they did to infect and spiritually affect the people of Israel.

Scheming? Spiritual attacks? And you say I'm reading into the text. Lol.

Where in America is this kind of so-called 'rape', or what we would currently call 'rape,' happening, by which we would attempt to 'measure' anachronisitically what transpires in Numbers 31? I don't know of any stories in U.S. literature where we Americans have been told by God to clean out another country, or then be told by our leaders to leave the virgins alive and to take them home as our wives. (And if they are to be wives, then biblically speaking, that is to make them become 'Israelites,' even against their will. And if they are Israelite women, well then..................that's a different story altogether.)

Relevance?

No, when we concern ourselves about rape victims today, as is often depicted in Crime Scene type t.v. shows, heard about on the 10 o'clock news, or studied in the context of Criminal Law, we're usually hearing about some estranged lunatic who picks women off at the park and does terrible things to them-----it's never usually a case where we see a Perp take a women off the streets.......................and then "makes her his wife for life" with all of the care and love that a husband is responsible to muster and express. So, GET REAL! Stop all of your equivocating.

In our culture, rape is forbidden. So rapists are outcasts. In that ancient culture, rape was clearly not forbidden. In 600+ laws, no law forbids rape. They didn't even have a word for rape. You're the one equivocating. It's ridiculous to compare a rapist of today to a rapist of back then because everyone was committing rape back then.

Does this mitigate the vulgarity of rape? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it doesn't change the fact that rape occurred, and that your deity commanded/allowed it. Your tap dance routine got stale a long time ago. At least admit the obvious and make excuses. Do not deny the obvious with me. It's dishonest and disgusting.

I'm confident that both I and just about any Nihilist, including yourself, are equally sinners in the eyes of God; I'm also confident that as a Christian, I'm more conscientiously ETHICAL than you, even as we may squabble about the particulars, and even as we each try day by day to positively put into action for "goodness sake" the moral deliberations that run through our heads as they filter through our Ethical frameworks.

So... you're saying, "NV, I didn't mean to personally attack you with my statements, but understand that I am more conscientiously ethical than you." Lol. Ok. I'm convinced. Lying to me repeatedly must be ethical then because our conversations here are the only thing by which we can possibly measure one another. You know nothing about me. This conversation can't possibly get any more ridiculous... can it?

Of course, you'll probably think this implies that I'm thinking I'm 'better' than you. No, it doesn't. My being 'more' Ethically conscientious doesn't mean I don't have moments of hypocrisy. Like everyone else, I'm sure I do, but as a Christian, I don't excuse those moments. Neither do I run roughshod over EITHER my being mindful of as many of the reasons and causative social factors which may have gone into my producing my hypocrisies OR in my then having a fuller awareness of the extent to which I am responsible to identify, come to terms with and correct and rectify my moral failures.

There's a great case to be made that atheists are morally superior to theists, and in fact that it's not even close. But that's a bit off topic so perhaps consider holstering your sidearms and checking your personal attacks and prejudices at the door.

With that said, please put away your imputations about personal attacks being supposedly made on my part upon you. You do enough of that on me by poisoning the wells with your silly inferences. And if you've noticed, that is, if you've taken the time to notice, I drop a lot of comments around here where I imply that atheists are not always at fault for either their lack of belief or for all of the short sighted moral structures they mistakenly create in their heads. But, you don't seem to want to offer than kind of "benefit of the doubt" for Christians, not even for Christians like me. No, you just keep pushing, and when you think you have leverage, you push harder. Well, I've had enough of that! The buck stops here.

I'm not calling you a moral relativist, but since this thread is intertwined with dialogue with @cvanwey, then I'm calling YOU a moral Nihilist and I'm inferring that he is a Moral Relativist (by his own admission). And by the way, I'm not a Divine Command Theorist, or at least not of the kind you're used to hearing about, so get that straight!

This started when you said that I, as a nihilist, shouldn't be discussing morality. You've been corrected. Please acknowledge so.

Well, all that has to happen for this to be a better conversation is for you to become better educated about various fields (like that of Hermeneutics) which are definitively germane to our being able to humanly understand what we can of the Bible ................... and I would think that for a guy like you who clearly has the cognitive chops to expand your educational horizons, that wouldn't be difficult to do.

I am well educated on hermeneutics. You start by reading the text with your biases and pre-determined conclusion in mind, and then you proceed to ignore the obvious. Is that about right?

But somehow, despite your high intelligence, you can't seem to open yourself up to learning. Why is that? The only thing I can surmise is that something has happened to you that militates against your willingness to learn further and get beyond just relying on the likes of, say, Richard Carrier or Richard Dawkins. Of course, I'm guessing that "something" has remained unshared with the rest of us ... not that you should share it, but as @cvanwey might say, "I'm just saying!"

Let me close by saying this. Numbers 31 looks bad. Astonishingly bad. At the absolute bare minimum, you need to be admitting at the forefront that it looks like the girls were raped. You need to admit that human rights were not a thing back in these times, and that rape occurred regularly, and most importantly, you need to admit that if these savages had just raided an entire village and then spared only the virgin girls, that this looks quite bad and that rape is definitely where it looks like that train is headed. "But, you see, ..." is what should come afterward. But no. You just blurt out, "Where does it say they're raped?"

I'm not here to argue for argument's sake. I'm not going to argue just to argue. I'm not here to bash my head against the wall. You have to uphold your end of the conversation, and you've consistently let me down. Conversation with you is just no longer interesting to me. Good luck with other atheists. Maybe they'll be amused by your tap dances and denial of the obvious. When you're ready to pull your head out of the sand, I'll be waiting.

Nihilist Virus · Sep 25, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Why spare young girls and not young boys? Mercy isn't a good explanation for this gender bias. Imagine the Israelites strangling the 2 year-old Midianite boys while tenderly drying the tears of the 2 year-old Midianite girls.

It would be nice to know more about the Midianites. I've been doing some reading and one theory is that Yahweh was the God the Midianites, and the Hebrews were a tribe a Midianites. If this was the case then how could the Midianite women have led the Israelites to worship Gods other than Yahweh? I suppose it is possible but not very compelling.

A lot of people were polytheists back then. It's not difficult to imagine that scenario.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Why spare young girls and not young boys? Mercy isn't a good explanation for this gender bias. Imagine the Israelites strangling the 2 year-old Midianite boys while tenderly drying the tears of the 2 year-old Midianite girls.

Oh, so now we're thinking the Midianite girls tenderly had their tears dried rather than being subject to some of the heinousness that skeptics of the O.T. tend to pour out upon this passage?

Ok, then. I guess we're making ... progress with our understanding here? :dontcare:

It would be nice to know more about the Midianites. I've been doing some reading and one theory is that Yahweh was the God the Midianites, and the Hebrews were a tribe a Midianites. If this was the case then how could the Midianite women have led the Israelites to worship Gods other than Yahweh? I suppose it is possible but not very compelling.

Yes, it would be nice for us to know more about the Midianites, especially in their identity as a contradistinction to all of those several Canaanite tribes that were supposed to be "wiped out" (or rather displaced by God).

Well, let's just suppose that the Midianites had some of the same troubles with idolatry (and only God knows what else) that....the Israelites themselves had trouble with? :eheh:

cvanwey · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. A little birdie has insinuated that I might not be "nice enough" to some of my interlocutors. Therefore, here is my attempt to slightly rectify that ...*ahem*...shortcoming on my part.

You want me to "concede" that there is a possibility that Numbers 31, or some portion thereof, does not entail God's directive? Ok. I'll just say that, yes, there is always the possibility, however remote to me it may seem to be, that it could be the case that "God didn't completely inspire this chapter," particularly IF we take the various implications of the Documentary-Hypothesis into our view OR if we take into fuller consideration what Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan (both apologists on this very topic) say about how they think Moses may have overrun the supposed directive he received from God for "harassing the Midianites."

So, there.

Kool. It only took this 'parrot' (5) times in asking the same question, hence the term parrot I guess, to get some kind of an answer from you.

Moving forward... Regarding this 'can of worms', if you concede that Moses 'overstepped', whose to say anything he claimed was actually from God?

*********

But regardless, you still have not addressed my two points. And again, one does not need an extensive and scholarly hermeneutic background to derive to the following conclusions. Nor, is further Scripture needed:

1. God interacts to tell humans to kill other humans, and it may seem God would need to help effectively weed out the virgins; but somehow, does not help with anything else in this story line. Why is that? Well, logic would tell (me) that it is quite unfalsifiable to simply claim "God told me to kill all of you, but to keep your virgins." And yet, did not just simply exterminate the unwanted tribe Himself.

2. God wants to rid the world of the Midianites, but spares Midianites?

cvanwey · Sep 25, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Why spare young girls and not young boys? Mercy isn't a good explanation for this gender bias. Imagine the Israelites strangling the 2 year-old Midianite boys while tenderly drying the tears of the 2 year-old Midianite girls.
.

Sometimes, common sense is all that is necessary. You nailed it many posts ago. Don't expect a coherent answer now, and most likely moving forward.

Rather than answer, we continue to see dancing all around the premise of your basic question...

cloudyday2 · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, it would be nice for us to know more about the Midianites, especially in their identity as a contradistinction to all of those several Canaanite tribes that were supposed to be "wiped out" (or rather displaced by God).

Well, let's just suppose that the Midianites had some of the same troubles with idolatry (and only God knows what else) that....the Israelites themselves had trouble with?

Let's just say that the Midianites were a loose confederation of nomadic herdsman who met once per year at Mt. Sinai (say at Passover) to exchange goods, arrange marriages, make sacrifices to the god of Mt. Sinai (Yahweh). Some of these Midianites were enslaved by Egypt, but successfully rebelled under the leadership of Moses. With the manpower of these former slaves, Moses decided to attempt to become the supreme leader of the Midianites. The Midianites rejected Moses after some tribal warfare, and Moses was forced to lead his tribe of former slaves to greener pastures. This was probably near the end of the Bronze Age when governments were weak, so Moses decided to cross the Jordan. Etc.

There are lots of possibilities. Apparently the tribe of Dan may have been one of the "sea peoples".

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cvanwey said:
Kool. It only took this 'parrot' (5) times in asking the same question, hence the term parrot I guess, to get some kind of an answer from you.

Moving forward... Regarding this 'can of worms', if you concede that Moses 'overstepped', whose to say anything he claimed was actually from God?

*********

But regardless, you still have not addressed my two points. And again, one does not need an extensive and scholarly hermeneutic background to derive to the following conclusions. Nor, is further Scripture needed:

1. God interacts to tell humans to kill other humans, and it may seem God would need to help effectively weed out the virgins; but somehow, does not help with anything else in this story line. Why is that? Well, logic would tell (me) that it is quite unfalsifiable to simply claim "God told me to kill all of you, but to keep your virgins." And yet, did not just simply exterminate the unwanted tribe Himself.

2. God wants to rid the world of the Midianites, but spares Midianites?

Did God indeed say.....rid the world of the Midianites?

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Let's just say that the Midianites were a loose confederation of nomadic herdsman who met once per year at Mt. Sinai (say at Passover) to exchange goods, arrange marriages, make sacrifices to the god of Mt. Sinai (Yahweh). Some of these Midianites were enslaved by Egypt, but successfully rebelled under the leadership of Moses. With the manpower of these former slaves, Moses decided to attempt to become the supreme leader of the Midianites. The Midianites rejected Moses after some tribal warfare, and Moses was forced to lead his tribe of former slaves to greener pastures. This was probably near the end of the Bronze Age when governments were weak, so Moses decided to cross the Jordan. Etc.

There are lots of possibilities. Apparently the tribe of Dan may have been one of the "sea peoples".

**sigh** Ok. I'll bite, Cloudy. (I mean, I won't actually bite you, per say ... but you know what I mean). And where are you getting this info regarding the various ways we might confound the Biblical text by conflating various tribes of folks one with another when we don't have a time-machine?

cloudyday2 · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
**sigh** Ok. I'll bite, Cloudy. (I mean, I won't actually bite you, per say ... but you know what I mean). And where are you getting this info regarding the various ways we might confound the Biblical text by conflating various tribes of folks one with another when we don't have a time-machine?

Just imagining a possibility. I gather that you believe in the Bible as some sort of standard of truth or fact, but why? One reason is that without some standard of truth Christianity is at the mercy of those who claim religious inspiration, and we all know that those people are often cuckoo. But although a standard might be useful or even necessary to Christianity, why should anybody assume a standard exists, and why should the standard be the Bible? One reason is that Judaism believed the Torah was a standard (but then the Rabbis imaginatively interpreted the Torah to remove its faults and apply it to contemporary needs). Another reason is that Protestants rejected the standard provided by the traditions of the Catholic Church, so they needed something to replace that.

So I'm imagining real events that might have inspired legendary stories recorded in the Bible, but I would argue that everybody should do that. Reading the Bible as truthful and factual is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe the Bible is truthful and factual except that it would sure be nice if it was.

cvanwey · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Did God indeed say.....rid the world of the Midianites?

Now who's 'playing games?'

The beginning of the chapter states:

"Numbers 31 New International Version (NIV) - Vengeance on the Midianites"

In this case, 'vengeance' is to assure all are killed, even the small boys. But 'spare the virgins for yourselves' - paraphrased. Most likely for a few reasons....

1. During these times, women were considered possessions; certainly not equal to men.
2. Women were considered not much more than pleasure vessels, and breeders.
3. 'Touched' women were apparently not worth their weight in salt, if relations occured with other men prior.

If you want 'evidence', I can quote Bible verses for you....

Enough with playing coy @2PhiloVoid , and attempting to distract from the premise.... Let's get back to the questions - ('Polly want a cracker?')...

1. How can we assure what is and what is not credible, coming from the claims of Moses, if you now concede the former - that Numbers 31 may not be (partially/fully) God inspired/instructed?
2. For some reason, God intervenes to command genocide (and) helps humans pick out the 'true virgins,' but watches all the rest from a distance in these events?
3. God wants to wipe out an entire tribe, but may appear not to be privy to the fact regarding basic biology?

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cvanwey said:
Sometimes, common sense is all that is necessary. You nailed it many posts ago. Don't expect a coherent answer now, and most likely moving forward.

Rather than answer, we continue to see dancing all around the premise of your basic question...

And here's some more dancing, specifically let's see Paul Copan & Matthew Flanagan perform the Cha-Cha in the following excerpt regarding some of what we find in Numbers 31 from their book (pp. 122-123):

We observe the distinction between God's command (to kill every male, Num. 31:7), which Israel did carry out before the additional command from Moses (to kill women and children, vv. 17-18). This seems to be Moses's command solely--a command beyond what God had actually ordered and what had been carried out. As Old Testament scholar Robert Alter points out, 'one should note that it is Moses's, not God's' command here. But, some might ask, wasn't Moses justified in calling for the punishment of the Midianite seductresses? Perhaps three further responses could be given.

First, God's command centered on the Midianite plot hatched by Balaam; this was a corporate endeavor to incite Israelite treachery against Yahweh's covenant with them. And we are explicitly told that the Israelite men were [also] killed. And this was certainly God's prerogative to bring such a judgment.

Second, while Moses's command does highlight the women's guilt and judgment-worthiness, the text still indicates a distancing of the divine command (and its completion) from Moses's own command.

Third, as John Goldingay notes, we are not told that Moses's command is actually carried out, and we well know that the Old Testament does not shrink from mentioning deaths by divine judgment: "so this raises the question of whether the slaughter actually happened."

And I'll just add that, IF the above has any cogency, then it may just be that these Midianite folks weren't all killed altogether wholesale and that this shortfall in killing would have alleviated any additional act of having to sort women and little girls out from those who were "never with a man" from those who were.

But, I'm not seeing any Skeptics here utilize hermeneutical reading and take various contexts into consideration by which I might criticize Copan and Flanagan. No, we're just getting Chutzpah about how we Christians like to just dance, dance, dance around.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Just imagining a possibility. I gather that you believe in the Bible as some sort of standard of truth or fact, but why? One reason is that without some standard of truth Christianity is at the mercy of those who claim religious inspiration, and we all know that those people are often cuckoo. But although a standard might be useful or even necessary to Christianity, why should anybody assume a standard exists, and why should the standard be the Bible? One reason is that Judaism believed the Torah was a standard (but then the Rabbis imaginatively interpreted the Torah to remove its faults and apply it to contemporary needs). Another reason is that Protestants rejected the standard provided by the traditions of the Catholic Church, so they needed something to replace that.

So I'm imagining real events that might have inspired legendary stories recorded in the Bible, but I would argue that everybody should do that. Reading the Bible as truthful and factual is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe the Bible is truthful and factual except that it would sure be nice if it was.

Sure, and I think you have some good sense in how you try to weigh the various academic evaluations that are out there in Scho-la-la-la-land. But, let's face another fact: It's not as if Archeaology as a field and discipline would be expected to just vomit up a host of artifacts if the Biblical text were true? I mean, if the parting of the Red Sea took place, what do any of us really expect to find with assurance? Chariot wheels galore? Moses's lost pair of extra sandal's that dropped off as he lead the Israelites between two walls of water? What? No, what is often found in Archaelogy is incidental and accidental leftovers of but a few things from the past, particularly of things left from say, a very narrow time----like one week that took place 2500 plus years ago.

cvanwey · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
But, I'm not seeing any Skeptics here utilize hermeneutical reading and take various contexts into consideration by which I might criticize Copan and Flanagan. No, we're just getting Chutzpah about how we Christians like to just dance, dance, dance around.

Because you are not addressing my points. Nor does this really appear to solve @cloudyday2 's request either?

Post #195...

cvanwey · Sep 25, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
And here's some more dancing, specifically let's see Paul Copan & Matthew Flanagan perform the Cha-Cha in the following excerpt regarding some of what we find in Numbers 31 from their book (pp. 122-123):

We observe the distinction between God's command (to kill every male, Num. 31:7), which Israel did carry out before the additional command from Moses (to kill women and children, vv. 17-18). This seems to be Moses's command solely--a command beyond what God had actually ordered and what had been carried out. As Old Testament scholar Robert Alter points out, 'one should note that it is Moses's, not God's' command here. But, some might ask, wasn't Moses justified in calling for the punishment of the Midianite seductresses? Perhaps three further responses could be given.

First, God's command centered on the Midianite plot hatched by Balaam; this was a corporate endeavor to incite Israelite treachery against Yahweh's covenant with them. And we are explicitly told that the Israelite men were [also] killed. And this was certainly God's prerogative to bring such a judgment.

Second, while Moses's command does highlight the women's guilt and judgment-worthiness, the text still indicates a distancing of the divine command (and its completion) from Moses's own command.

Third, as John Goldingay notes, we are not told that Moses's command is actually carried out, and we well know that the Old Testament does not shrink from mentioning deaths by divine judgment: "so this raises the question of whether the slaughter actually happened."

And I'll just add that, IF the above has any cogency, then it may just be that these Midianite folks weren't all killed altogether wholesale and that this shortfall in killing would have alleviated any additional act of having to sort women and little girls out from those who were "never with a man" from those who were.

But, I'm not seeing any Skeptics here utilize hermeneutical reading and take various contexts into consideration by which I might criticize Copan and Flanagan. No, we're just getting Chutzpah about how we Christians like to just dance, dance, dance around.

This deserves a second response... If some of these commands were issued from Moses alone, we never see where God 'disapproves' of these 'additional' solo/rogue orders.

You see, Moses appeared to have a direct relationship with God. And yet, we see nothing of God's later disgust with Mose's defiance, like we do with other stories of the Bible.

Furthermore, it's always easy to tack on an unfalsifiable claim to 'cover your bases'... "so this raises the question of whether the slaughter actually happened."

If it didn't happen, then the Bible chapter is a lie for another reason...

Hence, post 195 stands...

2PhiloVoid · Sep 25, 2019

cvanwey said:
Now who's 'playing games?'

The beginning of the chapter states:

"Numbers 31 New International Version (NIV) - Vengeance on the Midianites"

In this case, 'vengeance' is to assure all are killed, even the small boys. But 'spare the virgins for yourselves' - paraphrased. Most likely for a few reasons....

1. During these times, women were considered possessions; certainly not equal to men.
2. Women were considered not much more than pleasure vessels, and breeders.
3. 'Touched' women were apparently not worth their weight in salt, if relations occured with other men prior.

If you want 'evidence', I can quote Bible verses for you....

Enough with playing coy @2PhiloVoid , and attempting to distract from the premise.... Let's get back to the questions - ('Polly want a cracker?')...

Just so you know, I was composing my post above while you were posting #195, so I didn't see it until after I wrote and posted.

Regardless, on this one point, I disagree with Copan and Flanagan, although I may agree with them on other points in their book not related to Numbers 31.

So, back to the virgins being spared issue. I agree with you that it seems most of the Midianites in this text were killed, and I say this for textual reasons, one being the presence of Numbers 31:35, which I thought you'd have cited by now.

And to tell you the truth, I'm not bothered by the fact that the text doesn't indicate every single nitty-gritty detail about this possible process or action involved in sorting out the virgins, nor do I demand (from God or the writer of the text) a list of every reason WHY it all just happened or had to happen that way. I mean, do you want a play by play account in the Bible of every time some man makes love to his wife in the text, or an account of every time they all went poo-poo?

I don't. Why do you?

What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

Generic Theist

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Generic Theist

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Similar threads