AlanF,
Are you sure the picture of the Turkana boy skeleton is not a hoax?
Have you seen the actual skeleton or are you taking for granted the picture is real?
If you have seen the skeleton, how do you know it was not tampered with?
"Mire of atheism..."
by Julie 93 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
This boils down to creationists saying evolutionists making stuff up or extrapolate wildly as they don't want to be held accountable for anything, and that they can't explian all the stuff god did but they are sure he had a good reason, and evolutionists saying that creationists cling to silly beliefs as they are not prepared to accept that there is no god and will jusify almost anything to bolster their beliefs.
This was funny;
You are a scientist at the top of your field. No one can match your knowledge or expertise. You create an experiment that allows you to completely monitor and control your parameters. Along come some college students who suggest that you are not fit to conduct such an experiment and that it would be better run under it's own guidance, completely self-propelled. You defend that this is not the case and that the experiment should clearly be run under your supervision, yet, to prove your point, you adjust the experiment. It will now be self-sufficient in it's proceedings. Along the way, a few conditions begin to develop that you don't agree with. Yet, to conduct the experiment properly, you must avoid interfering. However, the college students begin to interfere in a way that would be destructive to the nature of the experiment. Therefore, from time to time, you must step in to ensure a balance. Why do you allow some things to happen, and yet step in for other cases? Only you, as the scientist, can decide what is necessary to allow in order to accurately prove your point. No one else can judge. Further, the experiment must run it's course for a sufficient amount of time in order to justify your position. Does this mean that you do not care about the things you have created? Most certainly not. Naturally, you do care and wish for your experiment to be successful.
Nope, I've got a better illustration than that apologetic pile of poo.
The scientist creates life and gives the life minds and says they have freewill. At the same time he makes rules that can't be broken. Go figure; rules and freewill. Potassium and water.
The inevitable happened. These creatures with minds and freewill push the limits. The scioentist then punishes them for doing what came naturally.
But then the scientist alters their DNA so that rather than living forever and being free of disease they die and get ill. Why? Because these creatures with freewill weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
He then claims that he's going to see what happens.
Yet, when less senior members of his faculty start hanging with the creatures he made, he destroys all but a handful of his experiment AND the members of his faculty who thought his microbes more fun than him. Why? Because these creatures with freewill weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
Then, when the creatures are getting organised again and building a major city, he confuses their languages. Why? Because these creatures with freewill weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
He speaks to a certain tribe of creatures and says he's poissed of with the rest, but if the tribe kiss his butt often enough, he'll make them masters over the other creatures.
But these creatures get enslaved by another tribe and the scientist lets them languish there until he threaten the head of the tribe imprisoning his tribe of creatures with destruction unless he let them go.
But, to make an example for any other tribes who muck around with his people, the scientist hypnotises the ruler of the imprisoning tribe so he doesn't let them go, even when the scientist is carrying out a full-scale bilogical and chemical war against the imprisoning tribe.
Eventually the scientists tribe are let go. But, they're only creatures, and sometimes when they screw up and use their freewill in a way that the scientist doesn't like, he destroys vast numbers of them.
He even makes them wander in a desert eating fungus for a generation. Why? Because these creatures with freewill weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
Then he lets them invade the land he promised them for kissing his butt, and orders the ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants. Mass graves without markers containing men, women, children, animals.
Time passes. Every now and then the scientist kicks ass. Why? Because these creatures with freewill weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
Eventually, he persuades the second most senior member of his faculty to become one of the creatures and set an example of how a creature with freewill can do exactly what it's told. Yeah, right.
I am sorry, but the Bible is a load of bunk. My eight year-old daughter already thought it 'silly' at the age of six, and that's without her knowing my opinion, that's her own reasoning from all those stupid wasted hours sat on her butt learning how many hoops this god wants his creatures with freewill to jump through.
Believe it if you will; it doesn't mean you are not a nice person, it just means our brains work differently.
God should quit with the shit about freewill.
"We're Jehovah's Zom-om-bies! We're mindless aut-on-o-mies!"
If you want creatures with freewill, realise they won't always agree with you. Kicking their butt if they use it is like electrocuting a puppy for jumping up with muddy paws.
Bah, humbug, Christianity.
If Jesus was just a man, as I think he was, and was basically just trying to make people lead nice lives, as I think he was, if he could see what people say and do in his name, he'd of found a tree at age sixteen and nailed himself to it.
-
Quester
Julie and all,
The way I see it is this board is for people
struggling to recover from an abusive religious
environment.A lot of hurting and confused people here,
and maybe this isn't the ideal place to find
answers about the Bible and God's existence.Maximus started a thread called "Nourishment for
the Spirit" where many offered books to read that
helped them.Quester
-
Tina
Hi quester,
I respectfully disagree. This board is many things to many people not just recovery.Many are in different stages or have left totally. Why would discussing the existence of god be inappropriate? Or how the bible portrays him? His character traits? How science and the bible clash? These are existential issues.This is simply sharing opinions and research/knowledge that some have with others. Why would anyone fear this knowledge? It's out there all over the place.
Julie asked legitimate questions. Questions to make people think.Critical thinking skills are developed this way. SOmething sorely lacking as it was never encouraged in the org. Do we quash free thought and open debate regarding these issues? I think not. I think people benefit very much by topics like this. Questions that challenge assumptions and preconceived notions are nothing but beneficial.It should hopefully motivate one to explore and expand their worldviews.
Regards,tinaCarl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."
-
AlanF
Ah, Scorpion, I can see that you are not someone to be trifled with. Nevertheless, I will trifle with you.
: Are you sure the picture of the Turkana boy skeleton is not a hoax?
Yes. I made it. I also created all of the pictures of men landing on the moon that NASA stole from me. They're not hoaxes either.
: Have you seen the actual skeleton or are you taking for granted the picture is real?
Both. I took the picture myself, after verifying with God that the skeleton is real.
: If you have seen the skeleton, how do you know it was not tampered with?
I created it in my laboratory. I know what I did.
Actually, Scorpion, the earliest stuff I saw on this was in a 1984 National Geographic magazine, which I subscribed to at the time. Since then I've seen quite a few writeups on the find, including a long one by Richard Leakey (essentially the finder of this skeleton) in his book Origins Reconsidered.
I know that real facts like photos of an upsetting skeleton are terribly bothersome to you, but you can get past this. Really, you can! Just open your mind and close up the old wineskins!
AlanF
-
Julie
Well, well, it seems Brother Rex is quite upset.
>>To see some Good Christian up here pounding his chest and >>announcing that some are above the Mire of Atheism makes me want to >>demand answers and explanations. How can anyone reconcile the >>horrors in the bible with an all-loving, all-knowing God?
>"The horrors" are in parts of the Jewish history. You did not live >there, you do not have enough facts to judge anything.
Actually Rex, I thought the bible was suppose to be a Factual Account of the Jewish history. I merely base my assertions on the material available, like you. I mean if you and I both have the bible to work from on this matter, what makes you qualified to deem it God's word and what would disqualify me from deeming it nothing it to do with God? If I believe as you do would that then "qualify" me?
:>Some of it is a mystery! BTW, what great religious idea turns your >crank. Why don't you enlighten us all with some N.O.W. version of >God and a life in heaven?
You poor soul. The thought of mortality frightens you and I can understand that. No religion "turns my crank", I think it is all nonsense. I am grown up enough to cope with the fact that this life is likely all there is and so I try to live it instead of wasting it counting on the next.
>>I guess they've got balls like churchbells when it comes to >>criticizing those who don't believe as they do but they are all >>veritable eunichs when it comes to proving their beliefs are based >>on sound reasoning.
>>Marvelling at those who are stuck in the Mire of Christianity--
>>Julie, who is sure she'll get no satisfactory explanations THIS >>time either
>You haven't read a single book on my list that I keep giving out >here. So you say you are seeking answers? PROVE IT. Start with 'Mere >Christianity' by C.S. Lewis and then we'll walk you through the >rest.You don't know what I have read or what I haven't. How dare you presume to know anything about what I have read? And as far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, I am quite familiar with his work and I would recommend to you (since I don't presume to know what you have read) his book The Great Divorce. I don't need you or anyone else to walk me through anything.
And here's a little FYI you are in serious need of: The one making hte assertion (i.e. 'The bible is God's Word") is the one who has the burden of proof.
>What good does it do to chime in with a topic like this in a >forum >like this unless you are grandstanding?
Believe it or not Rex I am no publicity hound. I prefer a low-profile personally but I am sickened from time to time by the self-righteous, closed-mindedness of believers and, as I am pretty sure this is a public forum, I felt compelled to offer a few thoughts and felt free to do so. I didn't realize there was an unwritten rule that only those who agree with Rex are allowed to post and only those people have pure motives.
>Where did you do your Bible research, Atheists Online?
Did you read my post Rex or couldn't you make it all the way through once you realized I don't share your views? I formed my opinion on the bible by using (hold on to your hat--this may come as a shock) the bible. That's right Rex. I didn't read a bunch of books by people putting their own spin on what the bible says, I read it and saw for myself. I am a big girl. Fully capable of thinking all by myself.
>Oh, I know, >you are a fan of Jan H., Alan F., Norm H. and Kent. Are >they your guideposts for all of your beliefs?
You don't know shit about me. As I said, I formed my own opinions. I will tell you this. Once, when reading children's bible stories to my daughter, we covered some atrocity. Though it had been cleaned up a bit for children it was still brutal. My daughter says "That doesn't sound like God's people to me!" Just a child. She sees much clearer than many adults, as most children do. You want the truth? Ask a child.
:>BTW, what kind of 'tidy explanations' would you expect when all we >have are sketchy details about the events in question?
Oh I don't know Rex. They seem pretty detailed to me. Take the story in Judges I have posted here before. How the lady drove the tent spike through the guy's temples while he slept. That is a pretty detailed account. In the next chapter, where there is a song of praise for this sick deed, it is again recounted in great detail. I don't want "tidy explanations" to anything. I was never a JW so I never got used to "tidy explanations" being handed to me without having to form a single thought of my own. An advantage I seem to have over many ex-JW (like yourself for instance).
>Do you think that the writers of the different books of the Bible >took dictation from God? Might their be a 'human element' factor in >all of the inspired writings?
*lol* I don't think God had anything to do with the bible.
>For example, we have a barbarian world where a bedouin nation is >trying to survive in a land surrounded by enemies. They deal with >those enemies in a ruthless fashion just as any of us would if >placed in similiar circumstances!
There is an example I would like to share with you. Back when John was king of England, there was big trouble (like always). Seems John's nephew Arthur had ideas about winning the throne for himself. He and all his buddies from Brittany and other parts of France go take over a town at an early stage in the campaign. They take it easy and sleep like babies at night. The English find them asleep at their posts and sneak in and re-capture the town without shedding a drop of blood. Easy-peasy. How come simple humans can pull off such a bloodless battle and yet the All-powerful biblegod has to order much slaughter in order to give "his people" the lands he promised them? Pathetic.
>One of your problems is that you think you are actually better than >the people of 3000 years ago. None of us are any better and we are >just one big disaster away from a return to this kind of life. Do >you realize that?
Wrong again Rex. I happen to think that the people of 3000 years ago were no better than us. They aren't some chosen people receiving Divine Guidance anymore than the WT gets New Light. I think we are all just humans prone to violence and superstition, just like the Old Testament Jews. Some of us are honest enough to admit our mortality, some of us cannot deal with it. One is not better than the other though it seems to me that those who refuse to think mortality seem to think a little higher of themselves just because of their views. Sad.
>None of us are 'good' because our comparison is with Jesus and not >with other humans.
I see. Are you a Devout Follower of Jesus? Do you "give no thought to the morrow" as he instructed? Do you not work so you can afford to eat tomorrow? Do you maintain shelter in case inclement weather comes tomorrow? Or do you "give thought to the morrow"? How about the instructions of being a good person, and doing worship AND (now here's the kicker) leaving all your material goods behind to follow him? Do you live a life of poverty devoting your time to spreading the Good News? This is what Jesus supposedly said is required to be a perfect follower. So how devout are you really Rex?
>Furthermore, how can you expect to understand a being that is not >even bound by time?
Time is a man made concept. Apparently this Being you refer to isn't even up to human decency.
>How can you be so arrogant as to demand answers that you aren't >capable of understanding? Really, none of us alive today have close >to enough facts about the O.T. dispensation period to make any >judgement at all.
I see. So you haven't the facts to make a judgement? Yet you are judging me (in fact you seem to think you know me very well) because I don't believe the O.T. to be from God. I am growing weary of your double standard.
>Another problem that you have is you expect God to have attributes >that are pleasing to you and you ignore the rest.
You are so incredibly presumptuous. You have no idea what I expect or what I ignore.
>God is merciful, loving (enough to live as a man and die in agony, >bearing our sins and offering salvation freely), just, vengeful, >HOLY; which means, 'set apart' or 'unlike' any other.
>None of us are 'good' because our comparison is with Jesus and not >
>with other humans.For all your self-righteous blather I haven't seen one atrocity explained or justified. Pick one of the countless examples in the bible and tell me why I should consider God merciful. On second thought, with how slippery you are on the matter, I will name some specific scriptures for you to explain/justify/spin.
Daniel 6:24 What did the wives and children of Daniel's accusers do? Why were they slaughtered also? If that's mercy I will take heartlessness any day.
2Kings 2:23,24 Is this how we treat children acting like children?
1Chronicles 21:14 70,000 people die by God's hand because David to a census. I fail to see the enlightenment here. Maybe someone as all-knowing as you can explain it to simple little me.
>Until we are saved by accepting Christ, we are no more than objects >of wrath, enemies and rebels against God. Like it or not, the Bible >has the only explanation that fits the events of the world that we >live in. The evidence that God walked the earth in the person of >Jesus Christ is so overwhelming as to be an open and shut case. His >resurrection proves 'every jot and titel' of the Bible, regardless >
>of WHO likes it's contents.Do you know what "proof" means Rex? The only account of the resurrection is the bible and I think we can count that as biased. I know I don't consider my own children "enemies and rebels" unless they think as I want them to. I guess I am a better parent than God, or at least more loving.
>Anyone who believes they will get to heaven by 'being a good person' >or that 'all religions lead to the same place' are sadly ignorant of >just what the Bible teaches. ONLY a personal relationship with >Christ will give anyone salvation, regardless of all other factors >or ideas.
Grow up Rex.
>God created us.
So what's up with the tail-bone thing?
>God numbers our days.
>God calls us (or not) to serve Him, otherwise none would serve Him >because of our fallen nature.Or maybe enough people fear the vengeful biblegod that they see no other choice but to worship, lest they suffer as "God's enemies" did in all those heartwarming bible stories.
>Rex, who marvels at the lengths people will go to avoid any idea >that they can be held accountable!Quite the opposite Rex. I don't believe in your biblegod and I don't blame him for anything. Not the state of the world today or the condition of my life. I alone am reponsible for my failures and successes, as we all are. Seems to me it is believers that attribute EVERYTHING to God's will, not their own actions.
Julie, who looks forward, with great anticipation, to Rex's well thought-out, reasonable response.
-
borgfree
Julie,
I would just like to thank you for this thread. I left the borg and determined that NO one would again enslave my mind. I believe any discussion like this one cannot be harmful. I am a believer, to me personally my biggest reason is Jesus and His example. I will not close my mind.
Today we are having a first hand example of how WE feel when attacked and threatened by forces who do not care about life, liberty, or just plain human kindness. How will we react?
Thanks again.
Borgfree
"You can fool some of the people all of the time" especially if you are a member of the WT GB
-
Julie
Hi Borgfree--
For all your self-criticism about lack of education you are so worthy to have such a discussion. You are honest about your views and you apparently have the conviction that enables you to not demand a halt to such discussion.
Compared to some (I won't mention names) you are a giant among men/women. I admire your honesty and conviction and respect your right to your views. I am not out to dissuade anyone of their views/beliefs, just hoping to remind certain view-holders they are not "better" than others, regardless of their delusions.
Thanks for your honesty--
Julie -
Rex B13
J:Well, well, it seems Brother Rex is quite upset.
R: NO, not upset at all, maybe passionate is a better word? BTW, please don't be offended at my sarcasm and attitude. I do respect you as a person and know you are sincere. I do not hold myself as 'better' than anyone.
>"The horrors" are in parts of the Jewish history. You did not live >there, you do not have enough facts to judge anything.
J:Actually Rex, I thought the bible was suppose to be a Factual Account of the Jewish history.
Depends on your particular pattern of belief. You think that Ros is a Christian, right? Yet she and I differ greatly on our viewpoints regarding Genesis and a few other things.
J:> I merely base my assertions on the material available, like you. I mean if you and I both have the bible to work from on this matter, what makes you qualified to deem it God's word and what would disqualify me from deeming it nothing it to do with God? If I believe as you do would that then "qualify" me?
R: I can tell you why I believe it is the word of God. I cannot prove to you that it is. Belief comes from within.
R:>Some of it is a mystery! BTW, what great religious idea turns your >crank. Why don't you enlighten us all with some N.O.W. version of >God and a life in heaven?
J: You poor soul. The thought of mortality frightens you and I can understand that.
R: No, I know right where I am going. I have victory in Jesus and it is a done deal.
J:>No religion "turns my crank", I think it is all nonsense. I am grown up enough to cope with the fact that this life is likely all there is and so I try to live it instead of wasting it counting on the next.
R: Oh, now you play with me using condescencion. That is a often used tactic in debates. Your religion is 'self' and is very common place today.
>>I guess they've got balls like churchbells when it comes to >>criticizing those who don't believe as they do but they are all >>veritable eunichs when it comes to proving their beliefs are based >>on sound reasoning.
>>Marvelling at those who are stuck in the Mire of Christianity--
>>Julie, who is sure she'll get no satisfactory explanations THIS >>time either
>You haven't read a single book on my list that I keep giving out >here. So you say you are seeking answers? PROVE IT. Start with 'Mere >Christianity' by C.S. Lewis and then we'll walk you through the >rest.J:You don't know what I have read or what I haven't. How dare you presume to know anything about what I have read?
R: Duh, it's rather obvious that if you had actually read and pondered any serious Christian work you would not have the cocksure attitude that there is 'is no God and the Bible is nonsense'. I say that YOU HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE.
j: And as far as C.S. Lewis is concerned, I am quite familiar with his work and I would recommend to you (since I don't presume to know what you have read) his book The Great Divorce. I don't need you or anyone else to walk me through anything.
R: But have you read the one I suggested? I think not!
>What good does it do to chime in with a topic like this in a >forum >like this unless you are grandstanding?
J: Believe it or not Rex I am no publicity hound. I prefer a low-profile personally but I am sickened from time to time by the self-righteous, closed-mindedness of believers and, as I am pretty sure this is a public forum, I felt compelled to offer a few thoughts and felt free to do so. I didn't realize there was an unwritten rule that only those who agree with Rex are allowed to post and only those people have pure motives
R; tit for tat? I know, sarcasm can be fun.
>Where did you do your Bible research, Atheists Online?J: Did you read my post Rex or couldn't you make it all the way through once you realized I don't share your views? I formed my opinion on the bible by using (hold on to your hat--this may come as a shock) the bible. That's right Rex. I didn't read a bunch of books by people putting their own spin on what the bible says, I read it and saw for myself. I am a big girl. Fully capable of thinking all by myself.
R: You read the Bible from the 'jilted lover' perspective of the common ex-JW. Add to that all of the slander that the WTS uses on Christianity coupled with the lack of the Holy Spirit and the result is predictable. The gospel is an easy thing to see but the atheist inspired skeptical views require a thorough analysis of the text, the history, from both Biblical and secular sources.
>Oh, I know, >you are a fan of Jan H., Alan F., Norm H. and Kent. Are >they your guideposts for all of your beliefs?
J: You don't know shit about me. As I said, I formed my own opinions. I will tell you this. Once, when reading children's bible stories to my daughter, we covered some atrocity. Though it had been cleaned up a bit for children it was still brutal. My daughter says "That doesn't sound like God's people to me!" Just a child. She sees much clearer than many adults, as most children do. You want the truth? Ask a child.R: You can't handle sarcasm can you? Did you tell her WHY they were judged by God?
:>BTW, what kind of 'tidy explanations' would you expect when all we >have are sketchy details about the events in question?
J: Oh I don't know Rex. They seem pretty detailed to me. Take the story in Judges I have posted here before. How the lady drove the tent spike through the guy's temples while he slept. That is a pretty detailed account. In the next chapter, where there is a song of praise for this sick deed, it is again recounted in great detail. I don't want "tidy explanations" to anything. I was never a JW so I never got used to "tidy explanations" being handed to me without having to form a single thought of my own. An advantage I seem to have over many ex-JW (like yourself for instance).
R: Yeah, right. don't quibble over not being baptized. You were right there in spirit.
>Do you think that the writers of the different books of the Bible >took dictation from God? Might their be a 'human element' factor in >all of the inspired writings?
J:*lol* I don't think God had anything to do with the bible.
R: More dishonest tactics, Julie? You sidestep the question instead of anwering it?
>For example, we have a barbarian world where a bedouin nation is >trying to survive in a land surrounded by enemies. They deal with >those enemies in a ruthless fashion just as any of us would if >placed in similiar circumstances!
J: There is an example I would like to share with you. Back when John was king of England, there was big trouble (like always). Seems John's nephew Arthur had ideas about winning the throne for himself. He and all his buddies from Brittany and other parts of France go take over a town at an early stage in the campaign. They take it easy and sleep like babies at night. The English find them asleep at their posts and sneak in and re-capture the town without shedding a drop of blood. Easy-peasy. How come simple humans can pull off such a bloodless battle and yet the All-powerful biblegod has to order much slaughter in order to give "his people" the lands he promised them? Pathetic.Simplistic analogy that ignores the intent and the context of the verses in question.
So, let's look at the passages involved, this is from a commentary:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)
These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions -- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev -- the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):
9 the king of Jericho one the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
10 the king of Jerusalem one the king of Hebron one
11 the king of Jarmuth one the king of Lachish one
12 the king of Eglon one the king of Gezer one
13 the king of Debir one the king of Geder one
14 the king of Hormah one the king of Arad one
15 the king of Libnah one the king of Adullam one
16 the king of Makkedah one the king of Bethel one
17 the king of Tappuah one the king of Hepher one
18 the king of Aphek one the king of Lasharon one
19 the king of Madon one the king of Hazor one
20 the king of Shimron Meron one the king of Acshaph one
21 the king of Taanach one the king of Megiddo one
22 the king of Kedesh one the king of Jokneam in Carmel one
23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one the king of Goyim in Gilgal one
24 the king of Tirzah one thirty-one kings in all. (Joshua 12.7-24)
At first blush, it looks like YHWH is taking the initiative in the matter, and ordering Israel to wipe out 7-10 nations--without pity and without compromise--and that He intends to give these nations' lands to Israel for their possession. At the end of Joshua's military campaigns, a list of 31 conquered kings is given. (The Israelites fail to obey the directive, however, and God faults them for this--and, as He predicted, the Canaanites DO 'entice' Israel into practicing their religion.)Obviously, there are a couple of GOOD questions hiding in here:
Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?
Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)
What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?
Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?
These are NOT simple or light questions (if your heart is in right!), and so we must be VERY thorough in our analysis of the situation. We will need to approach this issue from a number of different sides, to make sure we have seen it clearly and from a large-enough perspective.
We will use the following question-set in analyzing the issue:
Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
Were there any limits placed upon Israel in this venture, and what was the EXACT content of the orders?
What general principles of God's governance might shed some light on the situation?
Then, I will try to focus any insights we get onto the opening questions.
....................................................................................
Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?
There are a few situations in the OT in which something like this either (1) occurs or (2) is ordered: Sodom/Gomorrah, the Flood, and the Amalekites. And we will look at one "anti-Example" that might function as 'control data'--Ninevah.The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems similar with the main exceptions that the cities were destroyed WITHOUT human agency, and that the vegetation was destroyed. God used some type of natural disaster to accomplish the destruction.
There are several known facts about this situation which might prove relevant. S&G lived in a good land (Gen 13.10-12). Abraham saved their cities once, in a masterful military maneuver (Gen 14), after which Abraham 'witnessed' to them. They were exposed to/had access to the pure message of God through Melchizedek--the priest-king of Salem--(who probably led Abraham to the true knowledge of God!). Nonetheless, they were extremely evil people (and who were proud of it--Is 3.9: The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.), and their crimes were both against God (Gen 13.13) and against people (Gen 18.20). Some twenty-five years after Abraham/Melky encounter, and several years after Lot had apparently been trying to 'moralize' the people (cf. Gen 19:9), the outcry to God is so great that He sends two angels to destroy the city and its environs (Gen 19.24ff). God had announced His intentions to Abraham in Gen 18, and agreed to spare the city if a few righteous could be found. Apparently, only Lot and his family (less than the required ten!) fit the description adequately, so the entire culture was judged and destroyed by God. The encounter involving Lot, the angels, and the men of the city is a vivid description of the evil of the city (Gen 19), and the NT refers to it as an example of judgment-future (2 Pet 2.6) with a special emphasis on sexual perversion (Jude 7). The fact that 'all the men of the city' were involved in the intended assault on Lot, indicates that the 'outcry' must have come from surrounding areas--hence, the 'international' scope of their evil. The destruction was immediate and total, including the surrounding cities and the vegetation (Gen 19.25), and is even used as an example by our Lord in Luke 17.29.
It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).The Flood of Noah
This was the largest annihilation/judgment to date (although it is very difficult to estimate with confidence the population at this time, especially given that 'violence' was at an extreme high and correspondingly would have made homicide rates horrendously high), and involved people, animals, and much vegetation (Gen 6-8). In a very incisive view of God's heart, we see the 'emotions' surrounding this apparent judgment:
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them." (Gen 6.5ff)
We also see the rather violent nature of the crimes in Gen 6.13:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.
The story is familiar: (1) God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat for him and his household (apparently NOT so innocent); (2) the evil/violence of the people were both against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); (4) Noah apparently "preached righteousness" to these people for AT LEAST a hundred years! (cf. 2 Pet 2.5); (5) this long period of preaching was an act of patience on God's part (I Pet 3.20);(6) in spite of the warnings, there were apparently no 'changed minds'.
Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 100 years) and at least a year of specific 'flood warnings'; (2) their crimes were violent and pervasive to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly [the Flood was more of a sudden-event a la tidal waves, than a gradual rising water--cf. Gen 7.11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.]; (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f)
The situation is thus:The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).
They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.
They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God.
As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel.
Their first targets were the helpless:
Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).
Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:
Amalek's assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel's life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus--Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-19).
But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400 more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.
Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel; (2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)--they are victims of their fathers' terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household).In each of these cases the peoples did NOT 'change behavior'--let's look at one people that DID: the "anti-Example" of Ninevah.
In the book of Jonah, we have an 'averted annihilation'.The wickedness of the city is great; prompts God to intervene (1.1-2).
The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me."
God sends Jonah to pronounce what LOOKS LIKE an 'unconditional prophecy' (3.3f)--
Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city -- a visit required three days. 4 On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
Instead of turning a deaf ear (or even a scornful tongue) to Jonah, the people 'change direction' (3.5-9):
The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
"By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish."
[Notice that the 'questionable behavior' included "violence"--vs. 8.]God responds to this "attitude adjustment" in grace (3.10):
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
(Notice that all during this judgment-time, God was still 'concerned' for Ninevah (4.10): But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?")So, in this "anti-Example" you have a people, confronted with truth/warning, who respond and avert the annihilation.
There is an obvious pattern here:
The annihilations are judgments.
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.Now, an obvious question comes up here. Do we have ANY EVIDENCE that the annihilation of the Canaanites falls into the above pattern? Do we have any reason to believe it was an exceptional case, a judgment for exceptional violence and evil?
Very definitely.
The biblical text gives us several indications that this campaign is such a judgment:Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (Gen 15.13f)
Notice that Abraham cannot have the land until the 'sin of the Amorites' reaches some 'maximum threshold'. This certainly LOOKS LIKE a judgment by God on the peoples of the Land. Also, notice that the evil treatment by Egypt of the Israelites (enslavement and mistreatment) are NOT 'evil enough' to warrant annihilation--only "punishment". We might therefore expect the 'sin of the Amorites' to be more extreme than that of Egypt.After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. (Deut 9.4)
Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (Deut 18.12)
"`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. (Lev 18.24-25)
So this annihilation was a judgment...but what was so 'bad' about the Canaanites (and Amorites)? Which brings us to the next point...Who exactly WERE these people that God wanted Israel to 'exterminate'?
What do we know about the Amorites, and the Canaanites (often used interchangeably)? What data do we have from the sources (archeology, classical writers, ANE literary remains, biblical passages)?
Prior to Abraham, the land of Syria-Palestine enjoyed a very high culture, dominated by the kingdom of Ebla.
"By the latter part of the Early Bronze Age Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in northwestern Syria had become a city-state of 260,000 people, with lesser "vassal" cities forming a far-reaching empire. It was the center of a vast commercial network, and records of its enterprises contain the earliest mention of such biblical cities as Salim, Megiddo, Gaza, Hazor, Lachish, and Joppa. An indication of the city's sophisticated planning is the audience court of the royal palace, which both architecturally and functionally mediates the space between the quarters with private residences and those with administrative offices." (ISBE, s.v. "City", p.707)
But something happened...something disrupted this advanced civilization...something destroyed the cities...something violently did international damage, driving nations from their homes, reducing this area to 'village life' again:
"Sudden and violent destruction occurred throughout much of the ancient world ca. 2300-2100 B.C. Palestinian civilization returned to the village level, with many E.B. sites abandoned and others left unfortified, a situation that continued through the early stages of the Middle Bronze period (until ca. 1950 B.C.). While many factors may have been involved, especially significant were Egyptian raids and mass population movements, at the center of which were the Amorites."(A.C. Myers, ISBE, op. Cit.)
And again, K.N. Schoville (POTW:164):
"The urbanization of Canaan in the Early Bronze Age II (ca. 2900-2700), illustrated by sites such as Arad and Ai, declined during the Early Bronze Age III, which ended about 2300. Walled cities were destroyed or abandoned, and urban culture gave way to a pastoral, village way of life over the next two centuries, Early Bronze Age IV (about 2300-2000). The reasons for such drastic changes are unclear, but three possible causes may be suggested: (1) Egyptian military action, (2) changing environmental factors including overpopulation, or (3) an invading horde of Amorites. The Amorites would have destroyed the urban centers and established the variant lifestyle characteristic of the period until urbanization flowered in the subsequent Middle Bronze Age II."
[There were probably two invasions by Amorite peoples--the one we are discussing here is the earlier, non-urbanized Amurru--cf. ISBE:s.v. "Canaan", p. 588]The Amorites were a distinctly war-culture, as well. They show up--by the name of Amorites-- in conquest texts as early as 2200 B.C. (EBLA3:90), and by their other names in many, many places.
"The Semitic Amorites are the best known: in Mesopotamian sources they are the mar-tu (Sumerian) and amurru (Akkadian), both of which words mean "west," and they are referred to as desert people who "know not grain." In the third millennium B.C. the conquests of Sargon of Akkad (2371-2316) extended to "the upper sea," meaning that he must have marched west to the Mediterranean. In the second millennium the Amorites established their First Dynasty in Babylon in which Hammurabi (1792-1750) was the most famous king; contemporary with that dynasty there were Amorite kings in Mari on the Middle Euphrates. At Jericho and other sites in Canaan cultural changes toward the end of the third millennium suggest the influx of new nomadic tribal people, probably Amorites. According to Ezekiel 16:3 Jerusalem was founded by a combination of Amorites and Hittites. Under Moses the Israelites found the Amorites in the hill country around Kadesh-barnea (Deut. 1:19-20), then conquered two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, in Transjordan (Deut. 4:46-47). Joshua in turn overcame the Amorite kings of the five cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (Josh. 10:5). In time Amorites and Canaanites were no doubt so mingled as to be indistinguishable, and the name Amorite was used as a general term for the inhabitants of the land, which could equally well be called the land of the Amorites (Josh. 24:15) or the land of the Canaanites." (Finegan, MM:121-122)
[The Canaanite peoples were brilliant engineers, and put their skills to use building war-culture cities. Their sites include very heavily fortified cities, and advanced design war-chariot ramps and gates. (ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.588; POTW:176f; ECIAT:95)]Not only did these peoples do destruction on an international scale, but they also were constantly fighting internally [MM:129; ECIAT:193-194]
Not only did the Amorites do wholesale destruction to the cities and the peoples, but they somehow also debased the 'better' polytheism of the pre-Amorite-invasion Canaanites. The pantheon of Ebla was prior to (by a thousand years) and yet essentially the same as, that of Canaan (EBLA2:79-89). Eblaite religion was your 'normal' polytheism of the ANE, but with some advanced traits. Pettinato points to one (EBLA0:178-179):
"The second innovation is represented by the Eblaite conception of the divine. In spite of widespread polytheism, it seemed to be coupled with henotheism and an abstract idea of God. Above all, the principal god, Dagan, was raised to a role of superiority that touched upon uniqueness."
Their religious praxis was likewise somewhat refined--relative to the other ANE nations--but somehow got 'changed' into the rather debased practices which we will below see were done in the Canaan of Israelite times. What influenced this cultural shift in praxis?
"Nevertheless, the vicissitudes in political fortunes, after the collapse of the Early Bronze Age civilization in Canaan, were accompanied by the settlement of new peoples (Amorites, Hurrians, and others). These new settlers brought about innovations and changes to the culture of Canaan." (EBLA2:89)
So, they were apparently into 'international violence', but what about these religious practices that YHWH seemed to be referring to in Deut 12.31: You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates..
Notice that the problem is NOT SO MUCH the 'other gods', but the religious RITUALS that are so bad.
So, what data do we have about their practices. Let's start with the biblical data, and check it against any archeological and extra-biblical literary data.The Biblical Data...
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
6 "`No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 "`Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 "`Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 "`Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 "`Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 "`Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 "`Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 "`Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 "`Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 "`Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 "`Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 "`Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 "`Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "`Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 "`Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 "`Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" (Lev 18, repeated in Lev 20)
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech. (Lev 20.1ff)
You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deut 12.31)
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, (Deut 18.10)
They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood. (Ps 106.38--about Israel!)
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. (I Kgs 14.24, cf. also Deut 23.17--No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.)
So, the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included:
Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
Incest
Bestiality
Homosexual practices
Cultic prostitution--both male and female.Let's see if the extra-biblical data supports the biblical material.
Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
Sadly, Yes.
Let's look at some of the scholarly descriptions of the data:
"Its origin (human sacrifice) must be sought, evidently, in Canaanite culture (in the broad sense). Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions contain the expressions mlk 'mr (transcribed mokhomor in Latin) and mlk 'dm. Very probably, these phrases mean respectively 'offerings of lamb' and 'offering of man', and refer to the sacrifice of an infant, or of a lamb as substitute. This interpretation is supported by a find in the sanctuary of Tanit at Carthage, where archaeologists have discovered urns containing burnt bones of lambs and goats, and, more often, of children. There is, too, a famous text of Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. Hist. XX 14): in 310 B.C., when a disaster was threatening Carthage, the inhabitants of the town decided it was due to the anger of Kronos, to whom they had formerly sacrificed their finest children: instead, they had begun to offer sickly children, or children they had bought. Thereupon, they sacrificed two hundred children from the noblest families. There was a bronze statue of Kronos with outstretched arms, and the child was placed on its hands and rolled into the furnace. Whether the details be true or false, the story is evidence of a custom to which other classical authors also allude.
"These inscriptions and texts are of late date, but the molk offering is mentioned in two steles from Malta belonging to the seventh or the sixth century B.C. The sacrificial term has not so far been found in inscriptions from Phoenicia proper, but child-sacrifice was practised there: a fragment of Philo of Byblos cited in Eusebius (Praep. Evang. I 10) says that the Phoenicians had an ancient custom--'they offered their dearest children in a way full of mystery' when danger threatened the nation. Porphyry (De abstin. II 56) says that the Phoenician History written by Sanchuniaton and translated by Philo of Byblos was full of stories about child-sacrifices offered to Kronos in times of calamity. These texts furnish the connecting-link with the story told by Diodorus Siculus, and we may mention also the reference to the king of Moab's offering his son as a holocaust when his capital was under siege (2 K 3 : 27).
"The sacrifice of children, then, by burning them to death probably made its way into Israel from Phoenicia (note: the main transmitter of Canaanite culture) during a period of religious syncretism. The Bible mentions only two specific instances, and they are motivated by the same exceptional circumstances as the Phoenician sacrifices: Achaz 'made his son pass through the fire' (2 K I6: 3) during the Syro-Ephraimite War, and Manasseh did the same (2 K 2I: 6) when confronted with some Assyrian threat which is not mentioned in the Books of Kings but which may be alluded to in 2 Ch 33:11f. Yet the custom must have been fairly wide- spread to have deserved the condemnations uttered by Deuteronomy, Leviticus and the Prophets. Though Phoenician texts properly so called do not mention the word, it is possible (we say no more) that the sacrifice was called molk in Phoenicia, as in Carthage, and that it came into Israel under this name." (AI:445-446).
Archeological evidence is firm and growing. Child sacrifice burial grounds are called tophet in the literature, and they occur throughout Palestine and the Phoenician empire. Ahlstrom mentions sites "at 'Atlit, Tell el-Far'a (S) and Tell el 'Ajjul in Palestine" (HAP:688, n.2). He gives a description of one monument depicting child sacrifice (HAP:op. cit.):
"The archaeological excavations at Punic Pozo Moro in Spain show a monument with a ritual scene with a god (with an animal head) on a throne and a table in front of him. He holds with one hand a pig lying on its back and in the other hand he has a bowl with the head and the feet of a little child (?) sticking up. He holds this bowl in front of his mouth. To the right there is another bowl, and a god with an animal head (horse?) holding a knife in his right hand above the bowl ready to slaughter the child. The scene (in a neo-Hittite style) shows both animal and child sacrifices as food for the gods."
New sites recently found include Gezer, Tyre, and numerous 'high places' (POTW:171, Is 57.5-7).
These child sacrifices were practiced not only during religious ceremonies (as most of the above were), but also during times of crisis (esp. warfare) and as dedication offerings at the building of cities/houses (i.e. "foundation sacrifices"; cf. AI:442). So Stern (ZPEB, s.v. "war, warfare" p. 895):
"Further, to secure God's aid, the troops would make sacrifices prior to battle--sometimes even human sacrifices...This custom seems also to have been taken from earlier Canaanite traditions, for in many Egyp. reliefs from the late kingdom, depicting the capture of towns in Pal., the besieged are shown throwing their children from the walls in seeking the gods' favor."
Notice that unlike so many other aberrant practices (e.g. sorcery) of the Canaanites, THIS WAS NOT widely shared by the other ANE cultures--it was a rarity. This evil was specifically Canaanite/Amorite. [Pushback:""But, hey, what about Abraham?!--Didn't God order HIM to sacrifice his kid? Isn't this a little inconsistent, pal?!"]Incest.
Incest was likewise NOT an acceptable ANE practice. For example, the famous Laws of Hammurabi contain several sections on this issue (Para 154-158; LCMAM:110-111) as do the Hittite law codes (laws 189-191; LCMAM:236).
The only external data about Canaanite practice we have here (you can imagine how difficult it would be to leave archeological traces of this around!) comes from the religious myths and 'role models' of their gods. [It must be remembered that the religious rituals of ancient cultures were generally 'reenactments' of divine activities. For example, when a religious myth would have one god impregnating another--producing "spring"--the humans would "re-enact" this with the cultic prostitutes.]
For example, in the Ugaritic corpus (Canaanite), there is the story of an incestuous El:
"The second myth is often called 'The Birth of the Good and Gracious God.' It opens with a banquet at which wine flows freely. The text is divided into sections, the tenth being the last and most crucial. El is about to create two women who will become either his wives or daughters, depending on his ability to impregnate them. He creates these females and seduces them, and they both become pregnant. One bears a child called Dawn (Shahar), and the other a child called Dusk (Shalim). Later, El makes love to these same women and they produce seven sons between them. These sons are 'the good and gracious gods.' They are destined to be gods of fertility, and are first suckled at the breasts of 'the Lady' (Asherah, wife of El?)." (NIEBF: 130).
With such deities to emulate, there is little wonder that God described this Canaanite practice as being very, very real.Bestiality.
Here we have the same situation as above--it is forbidden in other ANE codes (e.g. Hittite laws 187-188; LCMAM:236), but shows up in the Canaanite mythology, with Baal as the role model this time.
Baal is generally pictured in human form, and is often accompanied by a bull or rides upon a bull. (He is sometimes pictured as a bull as well, but this is in drawings, not in literary texts.) In one Ugaritic text, Baal, on his way to the underworld, has sexual relations with a young heifer (NIEBF:129; ANET:p139):
Puissant Baal complies.
He desires a calf-cow in Dubr;
A heifer in Shihlmemat-field;
Lies with her times seventy-seven,
[...]...times eighty-eight.
[See also the summary statement in ISBE: s.v. "Crimes", where it is linked to "certain pagan rites and mythology"]
Sorry about all of that. I couldn't take out any of this excellent commentary.>One of your problems is that you think you are actually better than >the people of 3000 years ago. None of us are any better and we are >just one big disaster away from a return to this kind of life. Do >you realize that?
J: Wrong again Rex. I happen to think that the people of 3000 years ago were no better than us. They aren't some chosen people receiving Divine Guidance anymore than the WT gets New Light. I think we are all just humans prone to violence and superstition, just like the Old Testament Jews. Some of us are honest enough to admit our mortality, some of us cannot deal with it. One is not better than the other though it seems to me that those who refuse to think mortality seem to think a little higher of themselves just because of their views. Sad.
Condescencion again, eh Julie? How 'sad'.
>None of us are 'good' because our comparison is with Jesus and not >with other humans.
J: I see. Are you a Devout Follower of Jesus? Do you "give no thought to the morrow" as he instructed? Do you not work so you can afford to eat tomorrow? Do you maintain shelter in case inclement weather comes tomorrow? Or do you "give thought to the morrow"? How about the instructions of being a good person, and doing worship AND (now here's the kicker) leaving all your material goods behind to follow him? Do you live a life of poverty devoting your time to spreading the Good News? This is what Jesus supposedly said is required to be a perfect follower. So how devout are you really Rex?R: Boy, that was real 'context buster'. You need some serious study, Julie! I could write pages on this...but I won't.
>Furthermore, how can you expect to understand a being that is not >even bound by time?
J: Time is a man made concept. Apparently this Being you refer to isn't even up to human decency.R: How much do you know of physics? My turn to 'LOL'.
>How can you be so arrogant as to demand answers that you aren't >capable of understanding? Really, none of us alive today have close >to enough facts about the O.T. dispensation period to make any >judgement at all.
J: I see. So you haven't the facts to make a judgement? Yet you are judging me (in fact you seem to think you know me very well) because I don't believe the O.T. to be from God. I am growing weary of your double standard.
R: Getting cranky, Julie?
>Another problem that you have is you expect God to have attributes >that are pleasing to you and you ignore the rest.
J: You are so incredibly presumptuous. You have no idea what I expect or what I ignore.R; You are rather obvious about it. I need no presumption.
>God is merciful, loving (enough to live as a man and die in agony, >bearing our sins and offering salvation freely), just, vengeful, >HOLY; which means, 'set apart' or 'unlike' any other.
>None of us are 'good' because our comparison is with Jesus and not >
>with other humans.R: Answer the point, Julie.
J: For all your self-righteous blather I haven't seen one atrocity explained or justified. Pick one of the countless examples in the bible and tell me why I should consider God merciful. On second thought, with how slippery you are on the matter, I will name some specific scriptures for you to explain/justify/spin.
Daniel 6:24 What did the wives and children of Daniel's accusers do? Why were they slaughtered also? If that's mercy I will take heartlessness any day.
2Kings 2:23,24 Is this how we treat children acting like children?
1Chronicles 21:14 70,000 people die by God's hand because David to a census. I fail to see the enlightenment here. Maybe someone as all-knowing as you can explain it to simple little me.R: Noted, this post is too long anyways.
>Until we are saved by accepting Christ, we are no more than objects >of wrath, enemies and rebels against God. Like it or not, the Bible >has the only explanation that fits the events of the world that we >live in. The evidence that God walked the earth in the person of >Jesus Christ is so overwhelming as to be an open and shut case. His >resurrection proves 'every jot and titel' of the Bible, regardless >
>of WHO likes it's contents.J:Do you know what "proof" means Rex? The only account of the resurrection is the bible and I think we can count that as biased. I know I don't consider my own children "enemies and rebels" unless they think as I want them to. I guess I am a better parent than God, or at least more loving.
R: Yes, you just confirmed your overwhelming lack of research into the most crucial event in the Bible, do I need to post my books list again?
>Anyone who believes they will get to heaven by 'being a good person' >or that 'all religions lead to the same place' are sadly ignorant of >just what the Bible teaches. ONLY a personal relationship with >Christ will give anyone salvation, regardless of all other factors >or ideas.
J:Grow up Rex.
R: Typical.
>God created us.
J: So what's up with the tail-bone thing?R: How about, 'what's up with the DNA thing between us and apes'? If you did some research.....nah, you'd just have another reason to dismiss the explanation, right Julie? It's always the world-view that gets in the way, isn't it?
>God numbers our days.
>God calls us (or not) to serve Him, otherwise none would serve Him >because of our fallen nature.J: Or maybe enough people fear the vengeful biblegod that they see no other choice but to worship, lest they suffer as "God's enemies" did in all those heartwarming bible stories.
R: That is utterly stupid and indicative of your own ignorance.
>Rex, who marvels at the lengths people will go to avoid any idea >that they can be held accountable!
J: Quite the opposite Rex. I don't believe in your biblegod and I don't blame him for anything. Not the state of the world today or the condition of my life. I alone am reponsible for my failures and successes, as we all are. Seems to me it is believers that attribute EVERYTHING to God's will, not their own actions.R:Who is your God, Julie? All humans worship something even if it is just materialsim. It is in our very nature.Why is it that from the time of ancient man there has always been one presiding deity before numerous lesser deities corrupted the worship? Why is there an ancient flood account from the Australian aborigines that is near duplicate of the Biblical one? It is from BEFORE the arrival of missionaries.....
Julie, who looks forward, with great anticipation, to Rex's well thought-out, reasonable response.
There it is.
Rex -
Scorpion
Thank you Alan F for your response. It is obvious you choose to believe in the research of others without actually knowing the find is legitamate.
And yes, I do find skeletons upsetting, especially those made up by individuals that have agendas to push. I am not saying this find is a hoax, I am just sceptical. Hope you are openminded enough to understand.
As far as wine skin, I choose to pour from a bottle, that is a more sophisticated way.