What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

cvanwey said:

Virgins are spared in this particular instance, and not in others. Why? Yes, I must have missed your prior explanation...



Right, because you can't go back in time and ask the deceased authors... Lucky you See below...



The goal was to wipe out the Midianites. Right? Lets assume you agree with me, as also expressed in Numbers 31. Let's also assume, for YOUR sake, that there exists some caveat with the 'virgins.' --- Not taking into account biology, in this matter.

To answer your questions above:

I have a fairly deduced conclusion. Feel free to add a third option, IF you can...

A) Some human - (soldier/mid-wife/other) made an attempt to separate/identify/spare the virgins from slaughter.

Why this option does not fare.... To this day, humans are still not able to completely and perfectly detect if a woman has been sexually active in the past, unless it was very recent. The hymen can break w/o sex. Furthermore, girls have other orifices available for penetration/use, if you know what I mean. And again, how would you examine a 5 year old, who has not been active vaginally in a month? Furthermore, do you actually think every younger woman was thoroughly examined? And even still, what about the ones who were raped one year ago? Further still, if one slipped through the cracks, undetected, God's ultimate plan would be spoiled. Thus, the only way to assure all virgins were correctly identified, would be direct help from God. Thus, I ask again, if God instituted magical help, to assure 100% identification, why not just further the magic one step further, to avoid the battle altogether? Just make all the unwanted peeps drop dead on the spot. Makes little to no sense...

B) As @Nihilist Virus already suggested, it would appear the victors wrote of this tale after-the-fact, and claimed God's hand or command, when maybe there was no God there to really be had at all.

Thus, I ask you, do you admit, there exists a chance, that this story did not have God's hand in it? If so, then post #1 is validated. If not, then you need to start making sense. Because there has yet to be provided a proper/logical rationale for such a chapter...

Stating we do not have enough information, is not my problem, it's yours, if you believe it WAS commanded by God.

Click to expand...

I told you that I'm not devolving to the level of discussion which you've apparently lowered yourself to (being that it was EXACTLY words like 'hymen' that I was wanting to stay away from). So, enjoy closing the cover on me as I get comfortable in this pseudo-logical Iron Maiden you think you've placed me in.

cvanwey said:

I stated prior, to you... When one feels they are cornered, or no longer feel they have the 'upper hand' in debate, they often resort to three tasks:

1. ad hominem
2. change the subject
3. stop responding

You are faced with 2 conclusions:

1. God's intervention appears required to carefully select all virgins. Because if He did not, mistakes would surely be made, for the reasons presented prior; in which you now care not to address.
2. The Midianite bloodline would continue, when sparing the untouched girls (Midianites).

Please remember, it was you whom chose to enter this topic arena. Apparently, because you were under the assumption that you could rationalize such 'commands.'

Well, as I've stated all along... Even if there exists such a God, it's quite possible *this* story line does not have God's hand within it... I asked you if this is possible..., and 'virtual crickets'. We both know why presumably.

I have raised this topic after careful consideration. Again, this topic appears perfect for the likes of an apologetic's arena.

Thanks anyways...

Click to expand...

If you'd take out your ear-plugs, you might hear [more than] the crickets that have been chirping here for the last .... oh.... 1 and a half years!?

What I'd suggest is that you trade in your left ear-plug for a textbook or class on Hermeneutics, and then the right ear-plug for a text-book or class on actual Logic(s). Just a suggestion so you can get out of the mire of constantly providing an onslaught of either unsound arguments on the deductive side or invalid ones on the inductive side.

cvanwey said:

@cloudyday2 , these are good 'additionals' to the rationale of the humans of this day. However, when we dig down to the root of this 'situation,' we are left with two rather large 'pickles', in which we have no choice but to deduce/surmise/conclude special pleading...

As you already affirmed, God's goal was to completely exterminate the Midianites. To do so, God could either perform the task Himself, order a group of humans to do the dirty deed, or maybe other...

In this case, He chose the later, in ordering a group of humans to do so. But for some reason, in this case, wanted all females whom have not ever laid with males preserved.

Problem number 1: Humans, especially during this time/era, were ill equipped to assure any/every virgin was accounted for... Lets say even one woman, thought to be a virgin, actually wasn't; and falls through the cracks, and is spared. God's ultimate plan, foiled! Thus, it would seem logical to conclude that God must have needed to intervene, by not only calling the order to exterminate such said tribe, but more-so magically, to assure such humans had the full ability to discern any/all virgins, without a single mistake. And as I already stated to @2PhiloVoid , if God was to invoke his powers to achieve an end goal, why only here? Why not just go a little further, and cause the entire unwanted tribe's demise. Why use humans to kill, but not to successfully identify/spare virgins? Seems a little askew.

Problem 2: Regardless of humans, and their traditions of the day, God's plan was to eradicate a people(s). Leaving some females of this 'people' to live, would not achieve this task. Again, regardless of what was known by humans at the time, God would know the bloodline would continue.

Both issues seem to require fallacious reasoning to reconcile... Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Of course I don't believe God inspired the OT, so my personal interest in Numbers 31 is to understand the thinking of the people who composed this unpleasant story about God. Most archaeologists - even Jewish and Christian archaeologists - don't think there is much historicity to the Torah. They believe that around the time of Ezra the Torah was spliced-together and edited to make the older stories compatible with the Jewish theology of that time. So why was Numbers 31 given the pass? Why wasn't Numbers 31 deleted or toned-down somehow? Didn't the editors realize that these stories made God sound awful? Of course the editors may have believed in the basic historicity of these stories and the correctness of their current Jewish theology, so they may have seen their edits as corrections to restore the stories to their original form rather than rewrites to make the stories more pleasant. Any story that contradicted the Jewish theology of the editors may have been automatically assumed to have scribal copying errors that needed to be reversed. Those are the questions that fascinate me. Of course I know those aren't the questions posed in the OP.

So those items #1 to #4 are designed to address my personal interest in Numbers 31 as a non-believer. As you pointed, we can't explain the motivations of a real and omniscient God by suggesting that the ancient people of this era might have misunderstood human biology in various ways.

cvanwey said:

Problem number 1: Humans, especially during this time/era, were ill equipped to assure any/every virgin was accounted for...

Click to expand...

Here is a wikipedia article that bolsters your point. I was aware of the possibility that prior sex might not be of the kind that would produce children and therefore go undetected, but I was not aware that even tests for the standard kind of sex might result in false positives and false negatives.
Virginity test - Wikipedia

Another wild explanation for the likely use of unreliable virginity tests might be that God didn't actually care if the virgins were spared and the non-virgins were not spared. Maybe God only wanted the Hebrews to BELIEVE that all the virgins and only the virgins were spared. Maybe God only wanted the Hebrews to BELIEVE that they were eliminating the genes of the native inhabitants while God was actually preserving them.

cloudyday2 said:

Of course I don't believe God inspired the OT, so my personal interest in Numbers 31 is to understand the thinking of the people who composed this unpleasant story about God. Most archaeologists - even Jewish and Christian archaeologists - don't think there is much historicity to the Torah. They believe that around the time of Ezra the Torah was spliced-together and edited to make the older stories compatible with the Jewish theology of that time. So why was Numbers 31 given the pass? Why wasn't Numbers 31 deleted or toned-down somehow? Didn't the editors realize that these stories made God sound awful? Of course the editors may have believed in the basic historicity of these stories and the correctness of their current Jewish theology, so they may have seen their edits as corrections to restore the stories to their original form rather than rewrites to make the stories more pleasant. Any story that contradicted the Jewish theology of the editors may have been automatically assumed to have scribal copying errors that needed to be reversed. Those are the questions that fascinate me. Of course I know those aren't the questions posed in the OP.

So those items #1 to #4 are designed to address my personal interest in Numbers 31 as a non-believer. As you pointed, we can't explain the motivations of a real and omniscient God by suggesting that the ancient people of this era might have misunderstood human biology in various ways.

Click to expand...

So, is Numbers 31 not in line, thematically speaking, with the final closing narratives of the O.T., where Ezra tells the men of Israel to not only divorce, but to SEND AWAY both their newly taken pagan wives along with their children?

I mean, wake up folks, that's WHERE the O.T. ends---on THAT sour note! And somehow, I NEVER, EVER see anyone talking about it or the embedded contexts inducing it all which explain why EZRA, the supposed redactor of the O.T., said such a thing should be done, contexts that lead all the way back to ... Solomon.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, is Numbers 31 not in line, thematically speaking, with the final closing narratives of the O.T., where Ezra tells the men of Israel to not only divorce, but to SEND AWAY both their newly taken pagan wives along with their children?

I mean, wake up folks, that's WHERE the O.T. ends---on THAT sour note! And somehow, I NEVER, EVER see anyone talking about it or the embedded contexts inducing it all which explain why EZRA, the supposed redactor of the O.T., said such a thing should be done, contexts that lead all the way back to ... Solomon.

Click to expand...

The meanness is similar but the understanding of genetics is not. In your example the wives and children are sent away, but in Numbers 31 the virgins are kept. In Numbers 31 there is an apparent willingness to mate with foreign women as long as they are virgins. I assume the Jews that are scolded by Ezra have married virgins, but they are sent away along with the genetically mixed children.

cloudyday2 said:

The meanness is similar but the understanding of genetics is not. In your example the wives and children are sent away, but in Numbers 31 the virgins are kept. In Numbers 31 there is an apparent willingness to mate with foreign women as long as they are virgins. I assume the Jews that are scolded by Ezra have married virgins, but they are sent away along with the genetically mixed children.

Click to expand...

Nope. In both cases, the linchpin that everyone seems to be ignoring is not 'genetic,' but rather one that pertains to the relinquishing and avoidance of Idolatry involving foreign gods.

cvanwey said:

It's funny how you critic my assessments. And yet, it's apparent you do not appear to have the 'tools' to refute them

BTW, you have absolutely no clue of my background.

Click to expand...

Don't play games. You know that I've asked about your academic background, and you refuse to give specifics. On my part, I have little resistance in offering specifics. No, you just say, very generically, "I've studied a lot, and I've interviewed those who know." Well.....goody for you! That means essentially NOTHING to me! So, get that straight.

In regards to this chapter of Scripture, very little 'interpretation' is needed; unless you are in attempt to rationalize God's hand.

Click to expand...

Oh, well then. If it's so simple, please enlighten us ALL on what we need to read, how much and how, so we can understand it all like you. Again, since it's so simple.

Thus, I again ask, for the third time now...

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?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you 'mean' by "...does not entail God's directive." Do you mean that a) despite the fact the text says God commanded something, that we can think He really didn't, or b) God commanded things, but Moses actually went out and around what God had actually commanded regarding the Midianites.

Please clarify, because the above two literary entities are conceptually different, as I'm sure you can tell.

2PhiloVoid said:

Nope. In both cases, the linchpin that everyone seems to be ignoring is not 'genetic,' but rather one that pertains to the relinquishing and avoidance of Idolatry involving foreign gods.

Click to expand...

Ezra 9:1-2 RSV:
'After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Per′izzites, the Jeb′usites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.” '
Bible Gateway passage: Ezra 9:1-2 - Revised Standard Version

I don't see any mention of idolatry in that bible verse aside from 'their abominations', but there is a clear statement that 'the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the land'. It seems to me that genetics was the primary concern of Ezra.

In Numbers 31 idolatry was a clearer factor. BTW, I found an interesting comment in Wikipedia that might be relevant to understanding Numbers 31: "Some scholars have suggested that 'Midian' does not refer to geographic places or a specific tribe, but to a confederation or 'league' of tribes brought together as a collective for worship purposes." ( Midian - Wikipedia ). To be honest, I'm not certain how that potential fact affects our understanding of the virgin issue, but it seems important to consider.

cloudyday2 said:

Ezra 9:1-2 RSV:
'After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Per′izzites, the Jeb′usites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.” '
Bible Gateway passage: Ezra 9:1-2 - Revised Standard Version

Click to expand...

That's a good start, Cloudy, but get your scholarly thinking cap back on, because you're not done yet. Keep reading the rest of Ezra and notice how the writer keeps bringing up the term "pagan" to indicate the kind of wives these Israelite men married and what that implies ... I'm just kindly indicating this because you need to do this because....and because, well, I know that you're able to and can, whereas someone like @cvanwey apparently isn't willing and isn't able.

I don't see any mention of idolatry in that bible verse aside from 'their abominations', but there is a clear statement that 'the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the land'. It seems to me that genetics was the primary concern of Ezra.

Click to expand...

Nope! And if all a person had to read was Ezra 9:1-2, I'd very much conclude something similar. But if we're going to do 'good' Hermeneutics, we need to find ALL of the relevant material pertaining to what and how Ezra addressed this issue involving the marriage between these last O.T. Israelite men and pagan women. (I say 'last' because this account is close to the end of the historical O. T. narrative books).

Hint #2: You'll also need to find the related passages that are in the book of Nehemiah, which follows that of Ezra.

In Numbers 31 idolatry was a clearer factor. BTW, I found an interesting comment in Wikipedia that might be relevant to understanding Numbers 31: "Some scholars have suggested that 'Midian' does not refer to geographic places or a specific tribe, but to a confederation or 'league' of tribes brought together as a collective for worship purposes." ( Midian - Wikipedia ). To be honest, I'm not certain how that potential fact affects our understanding of the virgin issue, but it seems important to consider.

Click to expand...

That is interesting, but in understanding the context of Numbers 31, shouldn't we be finding all of the passages, chapters and verses that have something to do with the reasons and contexts that feed into Numbers 31? I'm going to assert that for us to understand Numbers 31, we need to be able to read MORE THAN Numbers 31.

cvanwey said:

Who said I was 'playing games?' I don't feel it is necessary to give my credentials to you. You might then want to stereo-type me?.?.? So stop assuming you know what I know. Just address the points. If the points are sound, which I feel in this case they could be, then simply refute them But it would appear you are not able to. You are instead addressing other elements. It would not matter if I was the janitor at McDonalds, or an astrophysicist from MIT.



I've laid out my assessment(s). It would appear, at lest thus far, you do not care to address them. You instead just tell me I'm incoherent.



Is it possible this entire story line was not directed by your believed God at all, and that whomever wrote of this tale (chapter 31) simply stated it was aided in God's hand anyways? yes or no?

If 'yes', then we have opened a huge can of worms -- (for you). If 'no', please address the many points of my assessment thus far. I don't care to repeat them again. They are the ones you've been avoiding, but somehow tried to 'duck' out of answering prior, because apparently, I used the word 'hymen'. Which is quite hilarious, since we are already speaking about virginity, sex, murder, etc.......

Click to expand...

And if the info isn't there by which I can answer your questions, then it's a moot point. It sounds to me like you've already made your mind up about the bible, and you want everyone else to feel the same cognitive dissonance over that disappointment which you have. Although I could be wrong about you, I'd call that a form of sadism.

I'm sorry God hasn't answered your prayers. He's answered only a few of mine, and not in any kind of 'Genie-in-a-bottle' kind of way. So, life sucks at various times for each one of us, and it will continue to suck.

cvanwey said:

I find it ironic that you accuse me of plugging my ears. And yet, I've stressed, on multiple occasions, that even if such a God exists, it would appear that God may not have had a hand in this chapter.

It's becoming more and more evident that you cannot address my points. Thus, again with the ad hominems and the changing of the subject.

If God was worried about His readers taking verse(s) out of context, don't you think He would have provided clarification? But my (2) points don't need further writings from the Bible anyways...

My 2 conclusions stand:

Apparently:

1. God aids in telling humans to kill other humans, and also helps puck out the virgins; but watches as the humans do everything else on their own. Why not just institute the act of killing, by giving all the unwanted recipients an immediate death? Why have humans kill other humans, and have the ones who are spared, watch, and are then expected to marry their captors?

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

Sounds more-so of the imperfect 'fumblings' and limitations of a man's tale, verses a claimed all knowing God's...

Click to expand...

And like I said. It sounds like you've already had your mind made up all along. Are you REALLY looking for answers, or is all of that just parrot talk?

cvanwey said:

It would not matter if I was the janitor at McDonalds, or an astrophysicist from MIT.

Click to expand...

Amen. Ideally every statement should be evaluated independent of the person who made the statement. Of course in most cases we are too lazy or too constrained in other ways to fairly evaluate every statement, so we have politicians kissing babies to get votes and so forth. But I don't see why we can't give every claim made in this thread a fair hearing regardless of differences in our backgrounds. I have zero academic background in these things, but I still have ideas that I hope others will read and discuss regardless of my lack of background.

cloudyday2 said:

Maybe they are good thoughts that I don't understand

Click to expand...

Winner!

2PhiloVoid said:

Keep reading the rest of Ezra and notice how the writer keeps bringing up the term "pagan" to indicate the kind of wives these Israelite men married and what that implies

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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

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

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.