Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Friendly Bombs
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Billing
Oct 17, 2012, 6:38:04 PM10/17/12
to
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.
Betjeman
http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/intuition/Slough.html
(Still in copyright, but this is fair use for purposes of criticism or
discussion.)
I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
of current social trends? I think it more likely.
Now if what we are looking at is a literary device we have no conflict
between the idea of a loving God, and the cursing passages.
It would appear that Paul did something similar. In Gal 5:12 he suggests
that those requiring circumcision should "cut themselves off". At least
one translator (Ken Taylor) was of the opinion that the phrase could mean
"go the whole way and castrate themselves".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal5:12&version=NIV
What worries me is that, just as easily as someone with a shaky command
of English could think Betjeman was really calling for the massacre of
Slough, we could be reading the passages in the wrong way as we are
hampered by being at the opposite side of a huge cultural divide from the
original authors.
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.
Betjeman
http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/intuition/Slough.html
(Still in copyright, but this is fair use for purposes of criticism or
discussion.)
I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
of current social trends? I think it more likely.
Now if what we are looking at is a literary device we have no conflict
between the idea of a loving God, and the cursing passages.
It would appear that Paul did something similar. In Gal 5:12 he suggests
that those requiring circumcision should "cut themselves off". At least
one translator (Ken Taylor) was of the opinion that the phrase could mean
"go the whole way and castrate themselves".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal5:12&version=NIV
What worries me is that, just as easily as someone with a shaky command
of English could think Betjeman was really calling for the massacre of
Slough, we could be reading the passages in the wrong way as we are
hampered by being at the opposite side of a huge cultural divide from the
original authors.
Matthew Vernon
Oct 18, 2012, 9:00:42 AM10/18/12
to
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
> It isn't fit for humans now,
> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
> Swarm over, Death!
"Fond" memories of GCSE English!
> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
> It isn't fit for humans now,
> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
> Swarm over, Death!
> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
Mark Goodge
Oct 18, 2012, 12:21:22 PM10/18/12
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:00:42 +0100, Matthew Vernon put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
>"Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
>An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
>actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
Although, having been to Slough, I'm less certain.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
and typed:
>Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
>"Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
>An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
>actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Kendall Down
Oct 18, 2012, 2:52:30 PM10/18/12
to
On 17/10/2012 23:38, Robert Billing wrote:
> It would appear that Paul did something similar. In Gal 5:12 he suggests
> that those requiring circumcision should "cut themselves off". At least
> one translator (Ken Taylor) was of the opinion that the phrase could mean
> "go the whole way and castrate themselves".
I have no doubt that that was what Paul meant. The cult of Phrygian
> It would appear that Paul did something similar. In Gal 5:12 he suggests
> that those requiring circumcision should "cut themselves off". At least
> one translator (Ken Taylor) was of the opinion that the phrase could mean
> "go the whole way and castrate themselves".
Cybele was quite popular in western Asia Minor, which includes the area
of Galatia.
I think you make a good point in the rest of the post, too.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The DA
Oct 18, 2012, 3:49:57 PM10/18/12
to
"Matthew Vernon" <mat...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:8762689...@macbeth.sac.ac.uk...
> Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
> "Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
> An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
> actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
>
Unlike this 'God' chappie.
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
> "Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
> An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
> actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
>
celia
Oct 19, 2012, 3:14:53 AM10/19/12
to
On Thursday, 18 October 2012 21:00:17 UTC+1, The DA wrote:
>
> > An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
>
> > actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
>
> Unlike this 'God' chappie.
>
Who is obviously infinitely patient in that no thunder bolts have been aimed in your direction.
>
> > An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
>
> > actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
>
> Unlike this 'God' chappie.
>
Celia
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 19, 2012, 4:25:41 AM10/19/12
to
Robert Billing wrote:
> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
> intent.
destruction actually carried out on God's orders, embedded in what
look like attempts at fairly straightforward historical narrative.
Some (I don't know whether you'd count these) are laws saying
"execute anyone who does X", embedded in lengthy lists of laws
which show no sign of rhetorical effect. Few of them come with
any indication of not meaning what they say on their faces.
We can tell that Betjeman wasn't literally asking for someone
to bomb Slough because
1 it's very rare for someone to want cities in their own
country wiped out;
2 it's rather common for poets to say things they don't
literally mean;
3 the poem calls for things that would be impossible for a
real bomb attack (e.g., kill a nasty and unscrupulous
businessman but spare his employees);
4 there's enough hyperbole and unrealism in other aspects of
the poem ("isn't grass to graze a cow", "tinned minds, tinned
breath") to make it clear that it isn't meant very literally.
None of this seems to apply, e.g., to the story in 1 Samuel
about the Amalekites:
1 it was not uncommon at that time for kings to have their
armies massacre their enemies;
2 most of 1 Samuel isn't at all poetic or metaphorical, and
it seems that the author generally means what he says;
3 unfortunately, wholesale genocide isn't impossible;
4 there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than the genocide
itself.
Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
other gods in Deuteronomy 13:6ff:
1 there's plenty else in the OT that speaks just as harshly
about worshipping other gods, and plenty else that gets
the death penalty;
2 this law comes at the start of a list, and the others don't
look at all as if they mean anything other than what they
say;
3 there's unfortunately no impossibility about executing people
who follow state-unapproved gods, nor about getting people
to turn in their friends and families for ideological offences;
4 again there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than what
seems to most of us nowadays the excessive harshness of the
law itself. (And I bet there are plenty of people right here
in uk.r.c who would vigorously defend it.)
> What worries me is that, just as easily as someone with a shaky command
> of English could think Betjeman was really calling for the massacre of
> Slough, we could be reading the passages in the wrong way as we are
> hampered by being at the opposite side of a huge cultural divide from the
> original authors.
think their authors intended them to be read, and why?
--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc
The DA
Oct 19, 2012, 7:07:30 AM10/19/12
to
"celia" <celi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3436de53-4c44-44fa...@googlegroups.com...
- .. -- Tim .-.
Oct 19, 2012, 7:44:16 AM10/19/12
to
Chap misses an easy putt, says "@$$* it, missed"
Vicar says, "You mustn't use language like that, old chap! The Good
Lord might strike you down!"
Chap (hopeless at golf) misses again on the next hole, says, "@$$* it,
missed" again.
Vicar says, "You mustn't use language like that, old chap! The Good
Lord might strike you down!"
This goes on at each hole, until the last, which of course our poor chap
misses, and says, "@$$* it, missed"
At this point, a thunderbolt crashes down from heaven, leaving just a
pile of ashes where the vicar once stood, but the chap who was so bad at
golf escaped unscathed.
Then from the heavens came this almighty voice:
"@$$* it, missed"!!
Tim.
Adam Funk
Oct 19, 2012, 8:41:26 AM10/19/12
to
On 2012-10-18, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
> "Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
> An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
> actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
He wrote a funny book on architecture, the name of which escapes me at
> Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
>> It isn't fit for humans now,
>> There isn't grass to graze a cow.
>> Swarm over, Death!
>
> "Fond" memories of GCSE English!
>
>> I wonder how many of the passages in the bible that advocate wholesale
>> destruction for various kinds of offences are in fact similar to this in
>> intent. Did Betjeman really want to murder the population of Slough? I
>> doubt it. Did he want to make a point about how strongly he disapproved
>> of current social trends? I think it more likely.
>
> An interesting point; I agree that it seems unlikely that Betjeman was
> actually a homicidal maniac ;-)
the moment.
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and
education. --- H G Wells
Matthew Vernon
Oct 19, 2012, 8:58:00 AM10/19/12
to
"- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> Reminds me of the tale of the chap playing golf with a vicar:
<snip>
> Reminds me of the tale of the chap playing golf with a vicar:
Raised a giggle here, so thank you :)
Matthew
trying work out how you pronounce "@**!"
Kendall Down
Oct 19, 2012, 9:01:59 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 09:25, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> None of this seems to apply, e.g., to the story in 1 Samuel
> about the Amalekites:
Except that Uncle Bob, if I understood him correctly, was making no
> None of this seems to apply, e.g., to the story in 1 Samuel
> about the Amalekites:
comment about the historical parts of the Bible, but rather to poetical
and prophetic parts where, for example, a psalmist exclaims "Happy is he
that dashes your children against a wall".
Kendall Down
Oct 19, 2012, 9:02:37 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 12:07, The DA wrote:
> How do you know they haven't? I might just be very nimble.
No matter how nimble your feet, God's aim is perfect and never misses.
celia
Oct 19, 2012, 12:51:15 PM10/19/12
to
>
>
>
> 1 it was not uncommon at that time for kings to have their
>
> armies massacre their enemies;
Read yesterday that the world has got progressively a more peaceful place. It's easy to forget that some of these stories date back to the Bronze Age. Moses' wife circumcised with a flint knife. That's a thought to make your eyes water.
>
>
> 1 it was not uncommon at that time for kings to have their
>
> armies massacre their enemies;
>
>
>
> 2 most of 1 Samuel isn't at all poetic or metaphorical, and
>
> it seems that the author generally means what he says;
I'm beginning to wonder if their idea of history was the same as ours. There seems to still be a tradition among the Jews of reinterpreting to fit the circumstances of the time.
>
>
> 2 most of 1 Samuel isn't at all poetic or metaphorical, and
>
> it seems that the author generally means what he says;
>
>
>
> 3 unfortunately, wholesale genocide isn't impossible;
Agreed
>
>
> 3 unfortunately, wholesale genocide isn't impossible;
>
>
>
> 4 there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than the genocide
>
> itself.
Actually I think there is as if I recollect correctly nations that were said to have been wiped out are mentioned later. Must get round to looking it up.
>
>
> 4 there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than the genocide
>
> itself.
>
>
>
> Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
>
> other gods in Deuteronomy 13:6ff:
There are two textual traditions here. The Septuagint reads, 'you must surely report him' and Deut. 29 leaves the punishment up to God.
>
>
> Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
>
> other gods in Deuteronomy 13:6ff:
>
>
>
> 1 there's plenty else in the OT that speaks just as harshly
>
> about worshipping other gods, and plenty else that gets
>
> the death penalty;
>
Indeed, but I wonder if all these detailed laws can be seen as secondary to the main instructions in the ten commandments, Deut. 1:5 seems to be saying that the book is Moses' expounding of the law. As such it could be viewed as inspired but for its time.
>
>
> 1 there's plenty else in the OT that speaks just as harshly
>
> about worshipping other gods, and plenty else that gets
>
> the death penalty;
>
>
>
> 4 again there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than what
>
> seems to most of us nowadays the excessive harshness of the
>
> law itself. (And I bet there are plenty of people right here
>
> in uk.r.c who would vigorously defend it.)
I expect to discover that you are at least half right.
>
> 4 again there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than what
>
> seems to most of us nowadays the excessive harshness of the
>
> law itself. (And I bet there are plenty of people right here
>
> in uk.r.c who would vigorously defend it.)
>
>
> > What worries me is that, just as easily as someone with a shaky command
>
> > of English could think Betjeman was really calling for the massacre of
>
> > Slough, we could be reading the passages in the wrong way as we are
>
> > hampered by being at the opposite side of a huge cultural divide from the
>
> > original authors.
>
>
Celia
>
> > What worries me is that, just as easily as someone with a shaky command
>
> > of English could think Betjeman was really calling for the massacre of
>
> > Slough, we could be reading the passages in the wrong way as we are
>
> > hampered by being at the opposite side of a huge cultural divide from the
>
> > original authors.
>
>
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 20, 2012, 9:06:39 PM10/20/12
to
I wrote.
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 20, 2012, 9:28:53 PM10/20/12
to
Celia wrote:
[me:]
>> None of this seems to apply, e.g., to the story in 1 Samuel
>> about the Amalekites:
>
> Proof that hyperbole was involved, you mentioned them, the Bible
> says that memory of them would be wiped out.
Are we reading different stories? I'm looking at the one whose
>> about the Amalekites:
>
> Proof that hyperbole was involved, you mentioned them, the Bible
> says that memory of them would be wiped out.
guts are found in 1 Samuel 15, which doesn't say anything about
memory. It just says: Samuel tells Saul that God wants him to
wipe out the Amalekites completely; Saul almost wipes them out
but spares their king and some of their animals; God tells
Samuel that because Saul didn't massacre them completely enough
God regrets making Saul king.
(There's a bit in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are told
to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven",
but how does that mean that the story in 1 Samuel doesn't
mean what it looks like it means?)
>> 1 it was not uncommon at that time for kings to have their
>> armies massacre their enemies;
>
> Read yesterday that the world has got progressively a more peaceful
> place. It's easy to forget that some of these stories date back to
> the Bronze Age. Moses' wife circumcised with a flint knife. That's
> a thought to make your eyes water.
>> 2 most of 1 Samuel isn't at all poetic or metaphorical, and
>> it seems that the author generally means what he says;
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if their idea of history was the same
> as ours. There seems to still be a tradition among the Jews
> of reinterpreting to fit the circumstances of the time.
same as anyone else's :-). But the relevant question isn't quite
whether their idea of history was the same as ours, but whether
it's different in a way that means that when they tell a story
in which God says to commit genocide and then gets angry when
the genocide isn't quite as complete as he demanded, it doesn't
constitute approval of genocide.
>> 4 there's no obvious sign of hyperbole other than the genocide
>> itself.
>
> Actually I think there is as if I recollect correctly nations
> that were said to have been wiped out are mentioned later.
> Must get round to looking it up.
The most obvious explanation would be that the story's been
stitched together from multiple sources and the people doing
the stitching didn't take out all the inconsistencies. Another
would be that, as you suggest, their idea of history was quite
different from ours -- but, again, that doesn't mean that
whey they said "God said do X and got angry when X wasn't
done thoroughly enough" they're not endorsing X.
>> Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
>> other gods in Deuteronomy 13:6ff:
>
> There are two textual traditions here. The Septuagint reads,
>'you must surely report him' and Deut. 29 leaves the punishment
> up to God.
about the same set of laws, but an entirely different thing that
isn't about law-making at all. So Deuteronomy has God (via Moses)
saying two separate things about those who choose to serve other
gods: (1) you must kill them; (2) in any case, God will curse them.
As for the Septuagint: at http://ebible.org/eng-lxx2012/DEU13.htm
there is what purports to be an English translation of the LXX of
Deuteronomy 13. Yes, it does say "you shall surely report concerning
him" -- but what it says immediately after that is "and your hands
shall be upon him among the first to kill him ... and they shall
stone him with stones, and he shall die". So yeah, it may be a bit
different textually, but it isn't any less brutal.
>> 1 there's plenty else in the OT that speaks just as harshly
>> about worshipping other gods, and plenty else that gets
>> the death penalty;
>
> Indeed, but I wonder if all these detailed laws can be seen as
> secondary to the main instructions in the ten commandments,
> Deut. 1:5 seems to be saying that the book is Moses' expounding
> of the law. As such it could be viewed as inspired but for its
> time.
at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
as a call for killing at all.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 21, 2012, 2:52:55 AM10/21/12
to
"Gareth McCaughan" wrote in message news
any form of physical violence irrespective of any provocation
from either personal attack or to maiming and killing in the 'defence' of
the realm.
Jeff...
> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
> at that time, but isn't now?
Correct, Christ's brethren in this present dispensation are to refrain from
> at that time, but isn't now?
any form of physical violence irrespective of any provocation
from either personal attack or to maiming and killing in the 'defence' of
the realm.
Jeff...
celia
Oct 21, 2012, 3:03:02 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 02:30:19 UTC+1, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such things is scribal error.
Celia
> Celia wrote:
>
>
> > Proof that hyperbole was involved, you mentioned them, the Bible
>
> > says that memory of them would be wiped out.
>
>
>
> Are we reading different stories? I'm looking at the one whose
>
> guts are found in 1 Samuel 15, which doesn't say anything about
>
> memory. It just says: Samuel tells Saul that God wants him to
>
> wipe out the Amalekites completely; Saul almost wipes them out
>
> but spares their king and some of their animals; God tells
>
> Samuel that because Saul didn't massacre them completely enough
>
> God regrets making Saul king.
>
>
>
> (There's a bit in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are told
>
> to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven",
>
> but how does that mean that the story in 1 Samuel doesn't
>
> mean what it looks like it means?)
>
I was referring to that on the grounds that if you read the Bible that literally there is an obvious contradiction in that we are discussing the Amalekites therefore their memory hasn't been blotted out.
>
>
> > Proof that hyperbole was involved, you mentioned them, the Bible
>
> > says that memory of them would be wiped out.
>
>
>
> Are we reading different stories? I'm looking at the one whose
>
> guts are found in 1 Samuel 15, which doesn't say anything about
>
> memory. It just says: Samuel tells Saul that God wants him to
>
> wipe out the Amalekites completely; Saul almost wipes them out
>
> but spares their king and some of their animals; God tells
>
> Samuel that because Saul didn't massacre them completely enough
>
> God regrets making Saul king.
>
>
>
> (There's a bit in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are told
>
> to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven",
>
> but how does that mean that the story in 1 Samuel doesn't
>
> mean what it looks like it means?)
>
>
>
> > I'm beginning to wonder if their idea of history was the same
>
> > as ours. There seems to still be a tradition among the Jews
>
> > of reinterpreting to fit the circumstances of the time.
>
>
>
> I'd hesitate to assume that anyone's idea of anything is the
>
> same as anyone else's :-). But the relevant question isn't quite
>
> whether their idea of history was the same as ours, but whether
>
> it's different in a way that means that when they tell a story
>
> in which God says to commit genocide and then gets angry when
>
> the genocide isn't quite as complete as he demanded, it doesn't
>
> constitute approval of genocide.
I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
>
> > I'm beginning to wonder if their idea of history was the same
>
> > as ours. There seems to still be a tradition among the Jews
>
> > of reinterpreting to fit the circumstances of the time.
>
>
>
> I'd hesitate to assume that anyone's idea of anything is the
>
> same as anyone else's :-). But the relevant question isn't quite
>
> whether their idea of history was the same as ours, but whether
>
> it's different in a way that means that when they tell a story
>
> in which God says to commit genocide and then gets angry when
>
> the genocide isn't quite as complete as he demanded, it doesn't
>
> constitute approval of genocide.
>
>
> Yeah, there are more Amalekites later on (even in 1 Samuel).
>
> The most obvious explanation would be that the story's been
>
> stitched together from multiple sources and the people doing
>
> the stitching didn't take out all the inconsistencies. Another
>
> would be that, as you suggest, their idea of history was quite
>
> different from ours -- but, again, that doesn't mean that
>
> whey they said "God said do X and got angry when X wasn't
>
> done thoroughly enough" they're not endorsing X.
>
Having looked into it it would seem that the text is highly redacted and but that doesn't entirely let God off the hook in that what we've got is what we've got. Lots of the OT have to be read through the lens of when the accounts were finally written down and every generation tends to put the spin on 'history' that helps them understand and get through the circumstances that they are in. I've been reading Avivah Zornberg recently, a Jewish writer in the midrashic tradition who to a Christian seems to embroider the text outrageously but through this has some very revealing insights into it. She gives her own revealing translation of Psalm 119;92 'If your Torah were not my plaything, I would have perished in my affliction.' If I was to 'play' with this text I would say that there are times when it is right to either argue with God because you know that what he is apparently telling you to do is against everything you know of his character or to trust God that he will be true to himself however inside out things appear.
>
> Yeah, there are more Amalekites later on (even in 1 Samuel).
>
> The most obvious explanation would be that the story's been
>
> stitched together from multiple sources and the people doing
>
> the stitching didn't take out all the inconsistencies. Another
>
> would be that, as you suggest, their idea of history was quite
>
> different from ours -- but, again, that doesn't mean that
>
> whey they said "God said do X and got angry when X wasn't
>
> done thoroughly enough" they're not endorsing X.
>
>
> >> Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
>
>
> >> Nor to the instruction to kill anyone who proposes serving
>
>
> It looks to me as if Deuteronomy 29 isn't a separate tradition
>
> about the same set of laws, but an entirely different thing that
>
> isn't about law-making at all. So Deuteronomy has God (via Moses)
>
> saying two separate things about those who choose to serve other
>
> gods: (1) you must kill them; (2) in any case, God will curse them.
>
The Bible seems quite unembarrassed about frequently saying things that seem contradictory. They can't have gone unnoticed when written down and some of the contradictions are placed side by side quite deliberately which suggests to me that it is a 'living' word and it is not meant to replace thinking but be the means that God uses to inspire that thinking.
>
> about the same set of laws, but an entirely different thing that
>
> isn't about law-making at all. So Deuteronomy has God (via Moses)
>
> saying two separate things about those who choose to serve other
>
> gods: (1) you must kill them; (2) in any case, God will curse them.
>
>
> As for the Septuagint: at http://ebible.org/eng-lxx2012/DEU13.htm
>
> there is what purports to be an English translation of the LXX of
>
> Deuteronomy 13. Yes, it does say "you shall surely report concerning
>
> him" -- but what it says immediately after that is "and your hands
>
> shall be upon him among the first to kill him ... and they shall
>
> stone him with stones, and he shall die". So yeah, it may be a bit
>
> different textually, but it isn't any less brutal.
True
> As for the Septuagint: at http://ebible.org/eng-lxx2012/DEU13.htm
>
> there is what purports to be an English translation of the LXX of
>
> Deuteronomy 13. Yes, it does say "you shall surely report concerning
>
> him" -- but what it says immediately after that is "and your hands
>
> shall be upon him among the first to kill him ... and they shall
>
> stone him with stones, and he shall die". So yeah, it may be a bit
>
> different textually, but it isn't any less brutal.
>
>
> > Indeed, but I wonder if all these detailed laws can be seen as
>
> > secondary to the main instructions in the ten commandments,
>
> > Deut. 1:5 seems to be saying that the book is Moses' expounding
>
> > of the law. As such it could be viewed as inspired but for its
>
> > time.
>
>
>
> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
>
> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
>
> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
>
> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
>
> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
>
> as a call for killing at all.
>
Perhaps progress has to be slow. I'm reminded of an early Anglo-Saxon king (can't remember who) who on conversion did a Jeff and rode into battle ahead of his troops without weapons on the grounds that Christians shouldn't kill with the inevitable consequences and canonisation.
>
> > Indeed, but I wonder if all these detailed laws can be seen as
>
> > secondary to the main instructions in the ten commandments,
>
> > Deut. 1:5 seems to be saying that the book is Moses' expounding
>
> > of the law. As such it could be viewed as inspired but for its
>
> > time.
>
>
>
> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
>
> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
>
> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
>
> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
>
> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
>
> as a call for killing at all.
>
I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such things is scribal error.
Celia
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 21, 2012, 3:33:10 AM10/21/12
to
"celia" wrote in message news:
"Is anything too hard for God?"
"26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible;
but with God all things are possible."
Matt 19:25-26 (ASV)
Example:
"11 Now Abraham and Sarah were both very old, and Sarah was long since past
the time when she could have a baby.
12 So Sarah laughed silently. "A woman my age have a baby?" she scoffed to
herself. "And with a husband as old as mine?"
13 Then God said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh? Why did she say ’Can an
old woman like me have a baby?’ 14 Is anything too hard for God?
Next year, just as I told you, I will certainly see to it that Sarah has a
son."
Gen 18:11-14 (TLB)
Jeff...
Today's exhortation:
"O ye of little faith why do you doubt"?
> The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are
> impossible
So very sad to see you state such a thing, Celia.
> impossible
"Is anything too hard for God?"
"26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible;
but with God all things are possible."
Matt 19:25-26 (ASV)
Example:
"11 Now Abraham and Sarah were both very old, and Sarah was long since past
the time when she could have a baby.
12 So Sarah laughed silently. "A woman my age have a baby?" she scoffed to
herself. "And with a husband as old as mine?"
13 Then God said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh? Why did she say ’Can an
old woman like me have a baby?’ 14 Is anything too hard for God?
Next year, just as I told you, I will certainly see to it that Sarah has a
son."
Gen 18:11-14 (TLB)
Jeff...
Today's exhortation:
"O ye of little faith why do you doubt"?
celia
Oct 21, 2012, 4:25:05 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 08:40:17 UTC+1, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "celia" wrote in message news:
>
> > The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are
>
> > impossible
They wondered around for a good few years as well.
> "celia" wrote in message news:
>
> > The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are
>
> > impossible
Add in women and children and think how long a column of that many people would take to cross the reed sea. Could two midwives have coped with that many births even if the Hebrew women popped 'em out quick before they got there? It is far more likely that some tired scribe who wasn't as good at numbers as writing, wrote down the wrong figures. If an older manuscript is found with 6,000 given as the number in the exodus would you still say it should be 600,000 because the KJV says so?
>
>
>
> So very sad to see you state such a thing, Celia.
>
> "Is anything too hard for God?"
Nothing is too hard for God but man is very fallible.
>
>
> So very sad to see you state such a thing, Celia.
>
> "Is anything too hard for God?"
Celia
John Cooper
Oct 21, 2012, 4:33:41 AM10/21/12
to
"celia" <celi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:cc16037b-6268-4090...@googlegroups.com...
> I'm reminded of an early Anglo-Saxon king (can't remember who) who on
> conversion did a Jeff and rode into battle ahead of his troops without
> weapons on the grounds that Christians shouldn't kill with the inevitable
> consequences and canonisation.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bede/history.v.iii.xviii.html
John Cooper
Robert Billing
Oct 21, 2012, 5:34:53 AM10/21/12
to
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Gareth
McCaughan say:
> Why don't you choose a couple of examples and explain how you think
> their authors intended them to be read, and why?
Time is against me this week, so I can't put a long answer together, but
I was particularly thinking of the "cursing psalms", PS2:9 is the example
that immediately springs to mind.
McCaughan say:
> Why don't you choose a couple of examples and explain how you think
> their authors intended them to be read, and why?
I was particularly thinking of the "cursing psalms", PS2:9 is the example
that immediately springs to mind.
celia
Oct 21, 2012, 9:21:58 AM10/21/12
to
Celia
celia
Oct 21, 2012, 9:28:06 AM10/21/12
to
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:40:18 UTC+1, Robert Billing wrote:
>
>
> Time is against me this week, so I can't put a long answer together, but
>
> I was particularly thinking of the "cursing psalms", PS2:9 is the example
>
> that immediately springs to mind.
According to my commentary a psalm that is very difficult to translate.
>
>
> Time is against me this week, so I can't put a long answer together, but
>
> I was particularly thinking of the "cursing psalms", PS2:9 is the example
>
> that immediately springs to mind.
celia
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 21, 2012, 10:45:10 AM10/21/12
to
"celia" wrote in message
news:87a09be9-87de-4973...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 08:40:17 UTC+1, 1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist wrote:
> "celia" wrote in message news:
>
>>> The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are
>> > impossible
To doubting human women, no doubt, but not to other human men & women who
have the depth of faith to believe with all their heart, that God did
exactly as the Scripture teaches.
Amen!
> They wondered around for a good few years as well.
> Add in women and children and think how long a column of that many people
> would take to cross the reed sea.
So what!
The Scriptures states everyone did.
> Could two midwives have coped with that many births even if the Hebrew
> women popped 'em out quick before they got there?
Absolutely Yes!
They could have done, and they did.
Especially as the Hebrew women where so healthy they had the babies before
the midwifes got to them.
"19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian
women. They are so healthy that they have their babies before a midwife
arrives.”
Ex 1:19 (GW) Hoo! Rah!
God knows what He is doing, even if the doubting Thomas's refuse to accept
the awesome capabilities of Almighty God.
> It is far more likely that some tired scribe who wasn't as good at
> numbers as writing, wrote down the wrong figures.
Oh! stop it!
For again you are shamefully doubting God's Word.
Is it any wonder God has wisely required of His faithful daughters... "To
learn in silence with all subjection".
> If an older manuscript is found with 6,000 given as the number in the
> exodus would you still say it should be 600,000 because the KJV says so?
There won't be another manuscript found saying 6,000.
Mark my words!
But even if it stated 6,000,000 I would believe it.
For He feeds 1,000's of millions of humans each day along with 1,000's upon
1,000's of millions of animals, birds and insects .
"14 If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all mankind would perish together
and man would return to the dust.
Job 34:14-15 (NIV)
>> So very sad to see you state such a thing, Celia.
>>
>> "Is anything too hard for God?"
> Nothing is too hard for God
You say that in one breath, and yet you are equating Him, because of your
doubting mind-set, to a mere fallible man, who did not do the very things
His Word, which is inspired by God Himself, actually states.
Which is known as a "Stabbing in the back".
> but man is very fallible.
Sheesh!
Which is my precise pointing, throughout this post in answering you.
Jeff...
news:87a09be9-87de-4973...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 08:40:17 UTC+1, 1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist wrote:
> "celia" wrote in message news:
>
>>> The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are
>> > impossible
have the depth of faith to believe with all their heart, that God did
exactly as the Scripture teaches.
Amen!
> They wondered around for a good few years as well.
> Add in women and children and think how long a column of that many people
> would take to cross the reed sea.
The Scriptures states everyone did.
> Could two midwives have coped with that many births even if the Hebrew
> women popped 'em out quick before they got there?
They could have done, and they did.
Especially as the Hebrew women where so healthy they had the babies before
the midwifes got to them.
"19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian
women. They are so healthy that they have their babies before a midwife
arrives.”
Ex 1:19 (GW) Hoo! Rah!
God knows what He is doing, even if the doubting Thomas's refuse to accept
the awesome capabilities of Almighty God.
> It is far more likely that some tired scribe who wasn't as good at
> numbers as writing, wrote down the wrong figures.
For again you are shamefully doubting God's Word.
Is it any wonder God has wisely required of His faithful daughters... "To
learn in silence with all subjection".
> If an older manuscript is found with 6,000 given as the number in the
> exodus would you still say it should be 600,000 because the KJV says so?
Mark my words!
But even if it stated 6,000,000 I would believe it.
For He feeds 1,000's of millions of humans each day along with 1,000's upon
1,000's of millions of animals, birds and insects .
"14 If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all mankind would perish together
and man would return to the dust.
Job 34:14-15 (NIV)
>> So very sad to see you state such a thing, Celia.
>>
>> "Is anything too hard for God?"
> Nothing is too hard for God
doubting mind-set, to a mere fallible man, who did not do the very things
His Word, which is inspired by God Himself, actually states.
Which is known as a "Stabbing in the back".
> but man is very fallible.
Which is my precise pointing, throughout this post in answering you.
Jeff...
Alwyn
Oct 21, 2012, 11:18:01 AM10/21/12
to
On 21/10/2012 09:25, celia wrote:
>
> It is far more likely that some tired scribe who wasn't as good at numbers as writing, wrote down the wrong figures.
We are in mythical territory here. The figures have symbolic value and
>
> It is far more likely that some tired scribe who wasn't as good at numbers as writing, wrote down the wrong figures.
are not to be taken literally. In other words, the reader is not meant
to judge a mythical event in the history of Israel by the puny standards
of everyday life.
Alwyn
celia
Oct 21, 2012, 2:10:14 PM10/21/12
to dt015...@blueyonder.co.uk
Celia
Alwyn
Oct 21, 2012, 3:11:39 PM10/21/12
to
On 21/10/2012 19:10, celia wrote:
>
> True many of the figures in the Bible have a symbolic meaning and sometimes they are clearly meant to be read that way because they literally don't add up but I can't think of a symbolic meaning to 600,000.
Well, who knows what associations it might have had for speakers of
>
> True many of the figures in the Bible have a symbolic meaning and sometimes they are clearly meant to be read that way because they literally don't add up but I can't think of a symbolic meaning to 600,000.
ancient Hebrew? In any case, mythical thinking usually goes from the
specific to the general, so six hundred thousand stands for nothing
other than 'a very large number'!
Alwyn
Kendall Down
Oct 21, 2012, 5:45:25 PM10/21/12
to
On 19/10/2012 17:51, celia wrote:
> Read yesterday that the world has got progressively a more peaceful place. It's easy to forget that some of these stories date back to the Bronze Age. Moses' wife circumcised with a flint knife. That's a thought to make your eyes water.
Really? Why? Flint can be extremely sharp and very smooth. I understand
> Read yesterday that the world has got progressively a more peaceful place. It's easy to forget that some of these stories date back to the Bronze Age. Moses' wife circumcised with a flint knife. That's a thought to make your eyes water.
that moels still use flint knives.
Kendall Down
Oct 21, 2012, 5:50:05 PM10/21/12
to
On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
> I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
> I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
disappears off the edge of the screen.
I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
you had had the chance.
> I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such things is scribal error.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 21, 2012, 6:30:59 PM10/21/12
to
On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
> Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the
> passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is
> criticised > for not going far enough with the slaughter.
Because yet again, he had failed to respect and obey the commandment of
> Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the
> passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is
> criticised > for not going far enough with the slaughter.
Almighty God.
When God commands to kill, it is treachery and sinful to defy Him.
When He commands NOT to kill, as in this Christian dispensation, it is
treachery and a grievous sin to kill other humans.
Why can't you and others grasp that fact?
Jeff...
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 21, 2012, 8:48:46 PM10/21/12
to
"celia" wrote:
>>> Proof that hyperbole was involved, you mentioned them, the Bible
>>> says that memory of them would be wiped out.
>>
>> Are we reading different stories? I'm looking at the one whose
>> guts are found in 1 Samuel 15, which doesn't say anything about
>> memory. It just says: Samuel tells Saul that God wants him to
>> wipe out the Amalekites completely; Saul almost wipes them out
>> but spares their king and some of their animals; God tells
>> Samuel that because Saul didn't massacre them completely enough
>> God regrets making Saul king.
>>
>> (There's a bit in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are told
>> to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven",
>> but how does that mean that the story in 1 Samuel doesn't
>> mean what it looks like it means?)
>>
> I was referring to that on the grounds that if you read the Bible that
> literally there is an obvious contradiction in that we are discussing
> the Amalekites therefore their memory hasn't been blotted out.
Israelites were instructed to blot out the memory of the Amalekites"
and (2) "the memory of the Amalekites wasn't in fact blotted out".
Also, what do you mean by "that literally"? (For the avoidance
of doubt, I am not arguing that everything in the Bible should
be taken literally, by Christians or by atheists or by anyone
else.)
> I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of
> innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city
> of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this
> actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate
> about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul
> would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the
> first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king
> so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough
> with the slaughter.
genocide was a bad thing that God would never command. Almost
inexplicable, in fact. The obvious conclusion is that actually
the author of the text thought genocide was just fine when it
was being done to the Enemies of God.
> Having looked into it it would seem that the text is highly redacted
> and but that doesn't entirely let God off the hook in that what we've
> got is what we've got. Lots of the OT have to be read through the lens
> of when the accounts were finally written down and every generation
> tends to put the spin on 'history' that helps them understand and get
> through the circumstances that they are in. I've been reading Avivah
> Zornberg recently, a Jewish writer in the midrashic tradition who to a
> Christian seems to embroider the text outrageously but through this
> has some very revealing insights into it. She gives her own revealing
> translation of Psalm 119;92 'If your Torah were not my plaything, I
> would have perished in my affliction.' If I was to 'play' with this
> text I would say that there are times when it is right to either argue
> with God because you know that what he is apparently telling you to do
> is against everything you know of his character or to trust God that
> he will be true to himself however inside out things appear.
text*? You may not be giving Avivah Zornberg enough credit for
her creativity. (Perhaps she doesn't give herself enough credit
either.) But of course I don't know -- I haven't read her work.
But I can't disagree with your conclusion that if God seems to
be telling you to do something odd, then you should either do it
or not do it :-).
> The Bible seems quite unembarrassed about frequently saying things
> that seem contradictory. They can't have gone unnoticed when written
> down and some of the contradictions are placed side by side quite
> deliberately which suggests to me that it is a 'living' word and it is
> not meant to replace thinking but be the means that God uses to
> inspire that thinking.
One bit says "you should kill the infidel". Another says "the
infidel is accursed by God". Do you think these contradict
one another?
(I do agree that the Bible often contradicts itself. Sometimes
that may indicate that the authors didn't mean what they seem
to say. But in this particular case, I just don't see the
contradiction.)
>> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
>> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
>> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
>> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
>> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
>> as a call for killing at all.
>>
> Perhaps progress has to be slow.
> I'm reminded of an early Anglo-Saxon
> king (can't remember who) who on conversion did a Jeff and rode into
> battle ahead of his troops without weapons on the grounds that
> Christians shouldn't kill with the inevitable consequences and
> canonisation. I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in
> the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus
> for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have
> given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such
> things is scribal error.
I am quite sure Bob is right that there is hyperbole in the Bible.
He may well be right that some of the superficially horrifying
passages are intended as hyperbole and become less shocking when
they're read that way. But some of the superficially horrifying
passages, it seems to me, are also deeply horrifying, and the
more closely you look at them the worse they look.
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 21, 2012, 8:51:49 PM10/21/12
to
what it looks at first sight like it means. That leaves plenty of
other horrible stuff that, alas, probably does mean what it looks
like it means.
Mark Goodge
Oct 22, 2012, 2:41:06 AM10/22/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:50:05 +0100, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
>
>> I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
>
>For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
>reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
>disappears off the edge of the screen.
That's because Celia is using the new version of Google Groups, which has a
serious fault in the way it handles line wrapping.
The short term solution for that, for Celia or anyone else using Google
Groups, is to switch back to the old version by following this link:
https://groups.google.com/?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
That will work at least until Google finally remove the old version.
Hopefully, by the time they do, they'll have fixed the line-length bug in
the new one.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
>On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
>
>> I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
>
>For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
>reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
>disappears off the edge of the screen.
serious fault in the way it handles line wrapping.
The short term solution for that, for Celia or anyone else using Google
Groups, is to switch back to the old version by following this link:
https://groups.google.com/?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
That will work at least until Google finally remove the old version.
Hopefully, by the time they do, they'll have fixed the line-length bug in
the new one.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 4:34:23 AM10/22/12
to
On 22 Oct, 07:50, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
> >For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
> >reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
> >disappears off the edge of the screen.
>
> That's because Celia is using the new version of Google Groups, which has a
> serious fault in the way it handles line wrapping.
>
> The short term solution for that, for Celia or anyone else using Google
> Groups, is to switch back to the old version by following this link:
>
> https://groups.google.com/?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
>
> That will work at least until Google finally remove the old version.
> Hopefully, by the time they do, they'll have fixed the line-length bug in
> the new one.
>
Thanks Mark, I haven't a clue how that worked as all I did was visit
your link and think to myself 'there's no mention here of Old Google
Groups.' I never opted for the new version in the first place and the
only option I saw possible was to make the new groups my default
setting.
Celia
wrote:
> >For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
> >reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
> >disappears off the edge of the screen.
>
> That's because Celia is using the new version of Google Groups, which has a
> serious fault in the way it handles line wrapping.
>
> The short term solution for that, for Celia or anyone else using Google
> Groups, is to switch back to the old version by following this link:
>
> https://groups.google.com/?hl=en&noredirect=true&pli=1
>
> That will work at least until Google finally remove the old version.
> Hopefully, by the time they do, they'll have fixed the line-length bug in
> the new one.
>
your link and think to myself 'there's no mention here of Old Google
Groups.' I never opted for the new version in the first place and the
only option I saw possible was to make the new groups my default
setting.
Celia
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 5:01:26 AM10/22/12
to
On 21 Oct, 15:50, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
desert land. (You've got to add in the women, children and non-
Israelites) What's more you have to breed this number from the
original handful of relatives of Joseph in the time it takes for the
Egyptians to forget who Joseph was. Add in the livestock and just
consider how much water they would need. No need for such a number to
ask permission to go to worship, if they were that organised they
could just up sticks and go, no one could stop such a number. I'm not
saying that it is impossible for God to do this but it doesn't fit in
with the mood of the story. These were frightened people fleeing and
there is no reason for that sort of number to feel intimidated. Either
the number is symbolic or it's wrong. There's no record of anyone
counting them.
Celia
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > If an older manuscript is found with 6,000 given as the number in the
> > exodus would you still say it should be 600,000 because the KJV says so?
>
> There won't be another manuscript found saying 6,000.
> Mark my words!
> But even if it stated 6,000,000 I would believe it.
> For He feeds 1,000's of millions of humans each day along with 1,000's upon
> 1,000's of millions of animals, birds and insects .
>
We are talking here of around 2 million people wandering around in a
>
> > If an older manuscript is found with 6,000 given as the number in the
> > exodus would you still say it should be 600,000 because the KJV says so?
>
> There won't be another manuscript found saying 6,000.
> Mark my words!
> But even if it stated 6,000,000 I would believe it.
> For He feeds 1,000's of millions of humans each day along with 1,000's upon
> 1,000's of millions of animals, birds and insects .
>
desert land. (You've got to add in the women, children and non-
Israelites) What's more you have to breed this number from the
original handful of relatives of Joseph in the time it takes for the
Egyptians to forget who Joseph was. Add in the livestock and just
consider how much water they would need. No need for such a number to
ask permission to go to worship, if they were that organised they
could just up sticks and go, no one could stop such a number. I'm not
saying that it is impossible for God to do this but it doesn't fit in
with the mood of the story. These were frightened people fleeing and
there is no reason for that sort of number to feel intimidated. Either
the number is symbolic or it's wrong. There's no record of anyone
counting them.
Celia
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 5:06:05 AM10/22/12
to
dog's tail with flint (only the hair, I was fond of the dog) flint is
very sharp but not very accurate, you have to sort of saw with it. My
point was really that we tend to view these narratives as if they were
happening today whereas the setting was the distant past in a culture
very different from ours.
Celia
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 5:12:20 AM10/22/12
to
On 21 Oct, 23:00, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
>
> > I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
>
> For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
> reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
> disappears off the edge of the screen.
I hope it's now fixed but I think it likely that New Google Groups
> On 21/10/2012 08:03, celia wrote:
>
> > I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough with the slaughter.
>
> For some reason the newsreader breaks your lines, but when I come to
> reply, there are no line breaks and the above is just one long line that
> disappears off the edge of the screen.
will kidnap me again.
>
> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
> you had had the chance.
Don't be daft. I can see that the Amalekites were scum when it came to
> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
> you had had the chance.
morals but they were descended from Esau and I've never seen that two
wrongs make a right and can see no justification for killing children.
>
> > I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such things is scribal error.
>
> They did. It's called the Ippuwer Papyrus and is in the Leiden Museum.
>
Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
> > I'm pretty sure that Bob is right about hyperbole in the Bible. The logistics of 600,000 men leaving Egypt in the exodus for example are impossible. (Not to mention that Egypt would have given the event more of a write up) The simplest explanation of such things is scribal error.
>
> They did. It's called the Ippuwer Papyrus and is in the Leiden Museum.
>
of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
Celia
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 5:23:34 AM10/22/12
to
On 21 Oct, 23:40, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
There's many a mass murderer who has through his lawyer pleaded
insanity because God told him to butcher his family.
If you were walking down the road and God told you to kill the young
mother and baby coming towards you I trust that your reaction would be
to remember that Satan is a deceiver and God has said 'Thou shalt not
kill.'
Saul was mentally unstable. It is not just in this dispensation that
it has been wrong to kill.
Celia
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> When God commands to kill, it is treachery and sinful to defy Him.
> When He commands NOT to kill, as in this Christian dispensation, it is
> treachery and a grievous sin to kill other humans.
>
> Why can't you and others grasp that fact?
>
Because God has given us a brain to use.
>
> When God commands to kill, it is treachery and sinful to defy Him.
> When He commands NOT to kill, as in this Christian dispensation, it is
> treachery and a grievous sin to kill other humans.
>
> Why can't you and others grasp that fact?
>
There's many a mass murderer who has through his lawyer pleaded
insanity because God told him to butcher his family.
If you were walking down the road and God told you to kill the young
mother and baby coming towards you I trust that your reaction would be
to remember that Satan is a deceiver and God has said 'Thou shalt not
kill.'
Saul was mentally unstable. It is not just in this dispensation that
it has been wrong to kill.
Celia
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 6:20:31 AM10/22/12
to
On 22 Oct, 01:50, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I was referring to that on the grounds that if you read the Bible that
> > literally there is an obvious contradiction in that we are discussing
> > the Amalekites therefore their memory hasn't been blotted out.
>
> I don't understand. There is no contradiction between (1) "the
> Israelites were instructed to blot out the memory of the Amalekites"
> and (2) "the memory of the Amalekites wasn't in fact blotted out".
Ah, I see why we are at cross purposes. You are reading Deut.25:19
> > I was referring to that on the grounds that if you read the Bible that
> > literally there is an obvious contradiction in that we are discussing
> > the Amalekites therefore their memory hasn't been blotted out.
>
> I don't understand. There is no contradiction between (1) "the
> Israelites were instructed to blot out the memory of the Amalekites"
> and (2) "the memory of the Amalekites wasn't in fact blotted out".
'You shall blot out' etc. whereas I'm on Ex. 17:14 'I will blot out'
etc. The Jews are still intent on the continuing process of blotting
out the memory of Amalek particularly during Purim, but it is now
interpreted as the suppressing of anything in themselves or others
that leads to the weak being preyed on.
>
> Also, what do you mean by "that literally"? (For the avoidance
> of doubt, I am not arguing that everything in the Bible should
> be taken literally, by Christians or by atheists or by anyone
> else.)
See the references above. I admit to having trouble with the literal
> Also, what do you mean by "that literally"? (For the avoidance
> of doubt, I am not arguing that everything in the Bible should
> be taken literally, by Christians or by atheists or by anyone
> else.)
meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants. A story
passed on mainly orally for a thousand years before reaching its final
written form is bound to get its message spelled out in ways that
boost the morale of the generation that passed it on. You've only got
to read Gildas or Bede to see how knowing that 'God works all things
together for good to those who love God' can influence how history is
read. No doubt the world was a better place without the Amalekites and
it is in God's plan for the good of all for such evil nations to be
eliminated; no doubt good came out of Hiroshima but the means were in
both cases morally reprehensible.
>
> > I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of
> > innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city
> > of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this
> > actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate
> > about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul
> > would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the
> > first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king
> > so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough
> > with the slaughter.
>
> It's strange if you assume that the author of the text thought
> genocide was a bad thing that God would never command. Almost
> inexplicable, in fact. The obvious conclusion is that actually
> the author of the text thought genocide was just fine when it
> was being done to the Enemies of God.
We don't know for certain the circumstances of the final author of the
> > I agree, it is clearly morally wrong and surely the murder of
> > innocents has always been morally wrong. Abraham pleaded for the city
> > of Sodom even though it was notoriously immoral. Assuming that this
> > actually happened in the way we read it (and there seems some debate
> > about the text)you'd have thought that the righteous reaction of Saul
> > would have been to argue with God. Having a king was a bad idea in the
> > first place and the point of the passage is that Saul was a bad king
> > so it seems strange that he is criticised for not going far enough
> > with the slaughter.
>
> It's strange if you assume that the author of the text thought
> genocide was a bad thing that God would never command. Almost
> inexplicable, in fact. The obvious conclusion is that actually
> the author of the text thought genocide was just fine when it
> was being done to the Enemies of God.
text. If I was to retell the story today I would adapt it to my
audience and no doubt soften the more brutal bits but if I was part of
an exiled community looking back on when life was good and feeling
bitter about present life I might tell it with a different slant as a
tale of God balancing the books in his dealing with the oppressors of
the weak. Most think it was written down shortly after the exile.
>
> Are you sure that the insights are actually insights *into the
> text*? You may not be giving Avivah Zornberg enough credit for
> her creativity. (Perhaps she doesn't give herself enough credit
> either.) But of course I don't know -- I haven't read her work.
I can recommend her books, beautifully written and full of
> Are you sure that the insights are actually insights *into the
> text*? You may not be giving Avivah Zornberg enough credit for
> her creativity. (Perhaps she doesn't give herself enough credit
> either.) But of course I don't know -- I haven't read her work.
psychological insights. Agreed the text is used as a starting place
for her creativity but it seems to me to be a valid way to read the
Bible and possibly also, to judge from medieval Jewish commentators, a
way in which Jews have approached Scripture for generations. I suppose
I had rather assumed that they would be as literalist as your average
fundamentalist.
>
>
> > The Bible seems quite unembarrassed about frequently saying things
> > that seem contradictory. They can't have gone unnoticed when written
> > down and some of the contradictions are placed side by side quite
> > deliberately which suggests to me that it is a 'living' word and it is
> > not meant to replace thinking but be the means that God uses to
> > inspire that thinking.
>
> But in the case we're talking about there's no contradiction.
> One bit says "you should kill the infidel". Another says "the
> infidel is accursed by God". Do you think these contradict
> one another?
Those bits don't but I trust that most Christians have moved to the
>
> > The Bible seems quite unembarrassed about frequently saying things
> > that seem contradictory. They can't have gone unnoticed when written
> > down and some of the contradictions are placed side by side quite
> > deliberately which suggests to me that it is a 'living' word and it is
> > not meant to replace thinking but be the means that God uses to
> > inspire that thinking.
>
> But in the case we're talking about there's no contradiction.
> One bit says "you should kill the infidel". Another says "the
> infidel is accursed by God". Do you think these contradict
> one another?
place where opposing the ideas of the infidel has replaced killing
them. Leaving the cursing to God seems better than slaughter, after
all God is the only one who can see the whole picture.
>
>
> >> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
> >> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
> >> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
> >> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
> >> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
> >> as a call for killing at all.
The sort of ignorance that led to the burning of heretics. Its
>
> >> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
> >> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
> >> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
> >> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
> >> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
> >> as a call for killing at all.
possible that in generations to come episodes like our world wars will
be seen as equally barbaric. I feel ambivalent about much of the
resorting to violence in the world today no matter how worthy the
cause. I'm sure Bob is right that many of the calls to slaughter the
enemy are the heartfelt cries of victims who know there isn't much
chance of them doing any slaughtering.
>
> > Perhaps progress has to be slow.
>
> Several-thousand-years slow? Why?
We are slow to learn the lessons of the past.
> > Perhaps progress has to be slow.
>
> Several-thousand-years slow? Why?
>
> Hyperbole and scribal error are completely different things.
world of hyperbole where the narrative and its moral is the important
thing.
>
Celia
John Cooper
Oct 22, 2012, 7:19:32 AM10/22/12
to
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
exodus. Five objections have been raised as to why this should be an
impossible figure.
These are:
There wasn't enough time to reach such a high figure.
Two midwives were not enough to cope with such a large number of women.
The Egyptians don't seem to have mentioned it.
It would take too long for such a large number to cross the Reed Sea.
The Sinai desert could not possibly sustain such a multitude.
_____________________________________________________________
Originally there were only 75 Israelites in Egypt. The children of Israel
were 430 years in Egypt, and for 400 of those years they were slaves. If
one starts with a population of just 75 people, and doubles it every 25
years, you easily get into the 2 millions in the allotted time. The Bible
says that the Israelites were particularly fruitful, and that this fact was
noted by the Egyptians.
___________________________________________________________
The two midwives were given their commandment by Pharoah at the time the
Israelites were enslaved, when the population was much smaller - only a few
hundred. Of these, half would have been women, and of those, a third would
have been of childbearing age. And they would not all have been having
babies at the same time. So I think that 2 midwives would have been quite
sufficient.
_____________________________________________________________
The Egyptians left their records in stone carvings, wall paintings, and
papyri. Of these, the latter are the least durable. No nation raises
monuments to commemorate its defeats.
__________________________________________________________
The Reed Sea almost certainly extended further north than it does today, up
the west side of the Sinai peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez
'The construction of the Suez Canal was favoured by the natural conditions
of the region: the comparatively short distance between the Mediterranean
and the Red Sea, the occurrence of a line of lakes or depressions which
became lakes (Lake Manzala in the north, and depressions, Timsah and the
Bitter Lakes, part way along the route), and the generally flat terrain.'
If the parted Red Sea was merely a footpath, which the children of Israel
had to negotiate single-file, then obviously it would have taken a long time
to cross over. But if the water parted several miles, it is a very
different situation. The people could have crossed in a broad front, as in
war. At the Somme, British forces advanced on a broad front of 12 miles. A
lot of people can quickly relocate in such circumstances, and the Israelites
were fleeing on masse from the pursuing Egyptians.
If we allow that the Red Sea was 1 mile across (a possible exaggeration) at
that point, and the waters were 1 mile apart, then there is ample time for 2
million people to cross over with their animals during the course of a
single night. Check it out.
_____________________________________________________________
The Bible makes no apologies for its miracles, and we are told that for 40
years, the Israelites were miraculously provided with manna. God
miraculously provided them with water on at least 3 recorded occasions.
They wandered from oasis to oasis, sometimes staying in one place for years,
before moving on.
As for their cattle - when Moses was feeding his father-in-law's flock, he
was allegedly in a desert place. However there was still enough vegetation
for sheep to eat. I wonder whether the Sinai was as barren then as it is
now. We all know of places that have suffered environmental damage through
overgrazing, or logging, which were once fertile, but became waste. Iceland
was once thickly wooded, believe it or not. Now it is denuded of trees, and
the soil has been washed or blown away.
And yet I note that on one occasion, the Israelites complained about the
lack of meat in their diet. So, many may have reacted to the scarce
conditions by cutting down on the number of their animals, having already a
long time ago slaughtered them for food.
__________________________________________________________
In short, I don't see any problem with the biblical account. It makes sense
quite literally to me.
John Cooper
exodus. Five objections have been raised as to why this should be an
impossible figure.
These are:
There wasn't enough time to reach such a high figure.
Two midwives were not enough to cope with such a large number of women.
The Egyptians don't seem to have mentioned it.
It would take too long for such a large number to cross the Reed Sea.
The Sinai desert could not possibly sustain such a multitude.
_____________________________________________________________
Originally there were only 75 Israelites in Egypt. The children of Israel
were 430 years in Egypt, and for 400 of those years they were slaves. If
one starts with a population of just 75 people, and doubles it every 25
years, you easily get into the 2 millions in the allotted time. The Bible
says that the Israelites were particularly fruitful, and that this fact was
noted by the Egyptians.
___________________________________________________________
The two midwives were given their commandment by Pharoah at the time the
Israelites were enslaved, when the population was much smaller - only a few
hundred. Of these, half would have been women, and of those, a third would
have been of childbearing age. And they would not all have been having
babies at the same time. So I think that 2 midwives would have been quite
sufficient.
_____________________________________________________________
The Egyptians left their records in stone carvings, wall paintings, and
papyri. Of these, the latter are the least durable. No nation raises
monuments to commemorate its defeats.
__________________________________________________________
The Reed Sea almost certainly extended further north than it does today, up
the west side of the Sinai peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez
'The construction of the Suez Canal was favoured by the natural conditions
of the region: the comparatively short distance between the Mediterranean
and the Red Sea, the occurrence of a line of lakes or depressions which
became lakes (Lake Manzala in the north, and depressions, Timsah and the
Bitter Lakes, part way along the route), and the generally flat terrain.'
If the parted Red Sea was merely a footpath, which the children of Israel
had to negotiate single-file, then obviously it would have taken a long time
to cross over. But if the water parted several miles, it is a very
different situation. The people could have crossed in a broad front, as in
war. At the Somme, British forces advanced on a broad front of 12 miles. A
lot of people can quickly relocate in such circumstances, and the Israelites
were fleeing on masse from the pursuing Egyptians.
If we allow that the Red Sea was 1 mile across (a possible exaggeration) at
that point, and the waters were 1 mile apart, then there is ample time for 2
million people to cross over with their animals during the course of a
single night. Check it out.
_____________________________________________________________
The Bible makes no apologies for its miracles, and we are told that for 40
years, the Israelites were miraculously provided with manna. God
miraculously provided them with water on at least 3 recorded occasions.
They wandered from oasis to oasis, sometimes staying in one place for years,
before moving on.
As for their cattle - when Moses was feeding his father-in-law's flock, he
was allegedly in a desert place. However there was still enough vegetation
for sheep to eat. I wonder whether the Sinai was as barren then as it is
now. We all know of places that have suffered environmental damage through
overgrazing, or logging, which were once fertile, but became waste. Iceland
was once thickly wooded, believe it or not. Now it is denuded of trees, and
the soil has been washed or blown away.
And yet I note that on one occasion, the Israelites complained about the
lack of meat in their diet. So, many may have reacted to the scarce
conditions by cutting down on the number of their animals, having already a
long time ago slaughtered them for food.
__________________________________________________________
In short, I don't see any problem with the biblical account. It makes sense
quite literally to me.
John Cooper
John
Oct 22, 2012, 7:33:26 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:12:20 -0700 (PDT), celia
<celi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
>of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
Presuming they took the sacraments regularly, could it be considered a
<celi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
>of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
mass exodus?
I'll grab me coat!
--
John
Alwyn
Oct 22, 2012, 8:27:44 AM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 12:19, John Cooper wrote:
>
> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
> exodus.
Maybe, but who counted them? I'm not aware they had censuses in those days.
>
> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
> exodus.
When there are demonstrations, the demonstrators, the police and the
journalists often give different estimates of the number of
participants. The demonstrators will usually inflate the number, but you
cannot rely on any of the estimates being correct.
Alwyn
John Cooper
Oct 22, 2012, 8:38:19 AM10/22/12
to
"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k63e3u$cbo$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
>> exodus.
>
> Maybe, but who counted them? I'm not aware they had censuses in those
> days.
>
> When there are demonstrations, the demonstrators, the police and the
> journalists often give different estimates of the number of participants.
> The demonstrators will usually inflate the number, but you cannot rely on
> any of the estimates being correct.
There was a census. The 600,000 figure is actually rounded down. The
actual total was 603,550 men - Exodus 38:26; Numbers 1:46.
John Cooper
news:k63e3u$cbo$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
>> exodus.
>
> Maybe, but who counted them? I'm not aware they had censuses in those
> days.
>
> When there are demonstrations, the demonstrators, the police and the
> journalists often give different estimates of the number of participants.
> The demonstrators will usually inflate the number, but you cannot rely on
> any of the estimates being correct.
actual total was 603,550 men - Exodus 38:26; Numbers 1:46.
John Cooper
- .. -- Tim .-.
Oct 22, 2012, 9:25:46 AM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 11:20, celia wrote:
>
> I admit to having trouble with the literal
> meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
Same here. It makes much more sense to assume either that they
>
> I admit to having trouble with the literal
> meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
*claimed* divine authority for it (as some politicians and leaders still
do in some countries today), or that they *believed* it was God's will.
God as revealed in Christ, coupled with the teachings and commands of
Christ, seem to be incompatible with a view of God that includes Him
commanding such attrocities. I think, if that WAS God's will, why
didn't He do His own dirty work, and have a few thunderbolts,
earthquakes or volcanic eruptions?
Tim.
Kendall Down
Oct 22, 2012, 12:02:15 PM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 10:12, celia wrote:
>> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
>> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
>> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
>> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
>> you had had the chance.
> Don't be daft. I can see that the Amalekites were scum when it came to
> morals but they were descended from Esau and I've never seen that two
> wrongs make a right and can see no justification for killing children.
Yes, it's tough on the children, but there are three points to be
>> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
>> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
>> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
>> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
>> you had had the chance.
> Don't be daft. I can see that the Amalekites were scum when it came to
> morals but they were descended from Esau and I've never seen that two
> wrongs make a right and can see no justification for killing children.
remembered.
1. What was the alternative? You kill off the parents but refrain from
killing the children, just go off and leave them in the wilderness -
starving to death is so much kinder, you see.
2. Or, you adopt the children and bring up a generation that will hate
you for what you did to their parents and will feel honour bound to
avenge. Neither pratical nor desirable.
3. But what if whatever was wrong with the Amalekite parents was in the
genes? Even if you only spared and brought up children so young that the
problem in (2) did not arise, if the children were genetically
programmed to evil[1], you have merely perpetuated the problem.
>> They did. It's called the Ippuwer Papyrus and is in the Leiden Museum.
> Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
> of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
lament regarding the condition of Egypt in the author's time. It speaks
of the king being "taken away" by low-born men, of the river flowing
with blood and no one can drink from it, of the cattle being wiped out,
and so on.
Unfortunately the only copy we have dates from the New Kingdom, but it
is widely recognised that it is a copy of an older original. Opinions
vary as to the date of this original, all the way from the Old Kingdom
to the Second Intermediate when the Hyksos took over the kingdom
"without battle" as Manetho notes.
Some Bible scholars place the Exodus at the end of the Middle Kingdom
and claim that the reason why the Hyksos could just walk in was the
pharaoh and his chariots were at the bottom of the Red Sea. Certainly a
literal reading of the plagues and the departure of so many Jews would
imply considerable weakening of Egypt, economically and militarily,
leaving it open to invasion by the Hyksos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer gives a rough summary of opinion
about the papyrus.
Part of the text of the papyrus can be found at
http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/homestudy/les07.htm
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
but I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, at least in a
gross sense. We see it in studies of identical twins separated at birth,
who commonly are wearing the same colours and styles when reunited, have
the same or similar jobs, enjoy or dislike the same things, and so on.
Kendall Down
Oct 22, 2012, 2:23:45 PM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 10:01, celia wrote:
> These were frightened people fleeing and
> there is no reason for that sort of number to feel intimidated. Either
> the number is symbolic or it's wrong. There's no record of anyone
> counting them.
Hmmm. On the point of breeding, don't forget the "mixed multitude",
> These were frightened people fleeing and
> there is no reason for that sort of number to feel intimidated. Either
> the number is symbolic or it's wrong. There's no record of anyone
> counting them.
probably non-Jewish fellow slaves who took the opportunity to get away
from their masters by joining with the escaping Jews.
As for "frightened people", there is no doubt that later on they were
frightened - for example, when trapped by the Red Sea - but initially
they were feeling pretty triumphant. Not only had their God forced
mighty pharaoh to let them go, but they had "spoiled the Egyptians" and
departed weighed down with gold and jewels.
Finally, you say that they could have just upped sticks and walked out.
That may or may not be true, but don't forget that God loved the
Egyptians as well as the Jews. The initial request was for a week off so
that they could go three days' journey into the wilderness. *If* pharaoh
had granted the request, I can imagine him being gradually led into a
saving relationship with the true God until he voluntarily restores
freedom to the Jews while Egypt is blessed and prospers.
That could not have happened by a mass walk-out.
Kendall Down
Oct 22, 2012, 2:32:00 PM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 12:19, John Cooper wrote:
> Originally there were only 75 Israelites in Egypt. The children of Israel
> were 430 years in Egypt, and for 400 of those years they were slaves. If
> one starts with a population of just 75 people, and doubles it every 25
> years, you easily get into the 2 millions in the allotted time. The Bible
> says that the Israelites were particularly fruitful, and that this fact was
> noted by the Egyptians.
Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
> were 430 years in Egypt, and for 400 of those years they were slaves. If
> one starts with a population of just 75 people, and doubles it every 25
> years, you easily get into the 2 millions in the allotted time. The Bible
> says that the Israelites were particularly fruitful, and that this fact was
> noted by the Egyptians.
generations.
i%=75
FORgeneration%=1TO13
i%=i%*2
PRINTi%
NEXT
The final value is 614,400
Of course, some of the previous generations will still be alive, but if
we assume 75 at death, that only makes just over one million. Even if
you assume that no Israelite dies during the 430 years, you get 1,228,650.
In actual fact, the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years, not 430.
Kendall Down
Oct 22, 2012, 2:32:34 PM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 13:27, Alwyn wrote:
> Maybe, but who counted them? I'm not aware they had censuses in those days.
I take it that you haven't read the book "Numbers".
> Maybe, but who counted them? I'm not aware they had censuses in those days.
celia
Oct 22, 2012, 2:47:16 PM10/22/12
to
On 22 Oct, 17:10, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 10:12, celia wrote:
>
> >> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
> >> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
> >> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
> >> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
> >> you had had the chance.
> > Don't be daft. I can see that the Amalekites were scum when it came to
> > morals but they were descended from Esau and I've never seen that two
> > wrongs make a right and can see no justification for killing children.
>
> Yes, it's tough on the children, but there are three points to be
> remembered.
>
> 1. What was the alternative? You kill off the parents but refrain from
> killing the children, just go off and leave them in the wilderness -
> starving to death is so much kinder, you see.
>
> 2. Or, you adopt the children and bring up a generation that will hate
> you for what you did to their parents and will feel honour bound to
> avenge. Neither pratical nor desirable.
>
> 3. But what if whatever was wrong with the Amalekite parents was in the
> genes? Even if you only spared and brought up children so young that the
> problem in (2) did not arise, if the children were genetically
> programmed to evil[1], you have merely perpetuated the problem.
You could always leave the women as well as the children. Women are
> On 22/10/2012 10:12, celia wrote:
>
> >> I understand that various people accepted money to smuggle war criminals
> >> such as Mengele out of Germany (where they would certainly have been
> >> hung) to safety in south America. I presume, from your comments above,
> >> that you approve of what they did and indeed would have done the same if
> >> you had had the chance.
> > Don't be daft. I can see that the Amalekites were scum when it came to
> > morals but they were descended from Esau and I've never seen that two
> > wrongs make a right and can see no justification for killing children.
>
> Yes, it's tough on the children, but there are three points to be
> remembered.
>
> 1. What was the alternative? You kill off the parents but refrain from
> killing the children, just go off and leave them in the wilderness -
> starving to death is so much kinder, you see.
>
> 2. Or, you adopt the children and bring up a generation that will hate
> you for what you did to their parents and will feel honour bound to
> avenge. Neither pratical nor desirable.
>
> 3. But what if whatever was wrong with the Amalekite parents was in the
> genes? Even if you only spared and brought up children so young that the
> problem in (2) did not arise, if the children were genetically
> programmed to evil[1], you have merely perpetuated the problem.
rarely as aggressive as men.
The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
on those that did it. If a mad king told me to kill dozens of babies
and I obeyed I rather think that for the rest of my life they would
haunt me. Unless it was God's direct word to me and there wasn't a
shadow of doubt I wouldn't lift a finger against a child and frankly
even if I thought it was God's command I'd argue that a god that
expected me to kill a baby wasn't the God that I know and love. If a
prophet can be excused cooking bread on human excrement even though
the message was thereby weakened I can't see that a plea on behalf of
infants would go unheard.
>
> >> They did. It's called the Ippuwer Papyrus and is in the Leiden Museum.
> > Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
> > of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
>
> No, the Ippuwer Papyrus does not mention numbers; it takes the form of a
> lament regarding the condition of Egypt in the author's time. It speaks
> of the king being "taken away" by low-born men, of the river flowing
> with blood and no one can drink from it, of the cattle being wiped out,
> and so on.
>
> Unfortunately the only copy we have dates from the New Kingdom, but it
> is widely recognised that it is a copy of an older original. Opinions
> vary as to the date of this original, all the way from the Old Kingdom
> to the Second Intermediate when the Hyksos took over the kingdom
> "without battle" as Manetho notes.
>
> Some Bible scholars place the Exodus at the end of the Middle Kingdom
> and claim that the reason why the Hyksos could just walk in was the
> pharaoh and his chariots were at the bottom of the Red Sea. Certainly a
> literal reading of the plagues and the departure of so many Jews would
> imply considerable weakening of Egypt, economically and militarily,
> leaving it open to invasion by the Hyksos.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwergives a rough summary of opinion
> >> They did. It's called the Ippuwer Papyrus and is in the Leiden Museum.
> > Really? I'm not doubting that the Exodus took place, merely the scale
> > of it. Does the Ippuwer Papyrus mention such vast numbers?
>
> No, the Ippuwer Papyrus does not mention numbers; it takes the form of a
> lament regarding the condition of Egypt in the author's time. It speaks
> of the king being "taken away" by low-born men, of the river flowing
> with blood and no one can drink from it, of the cattle being wiped out,
> and so on.
>
> Unfortunately the only copy we have dates from the New Kingdom, but it
> is widely recognised that it is a copy of an older original. Opinions
> vary as to the date of this original, all the way from the Old Kingdom
> to the Second Intermediate when the Hyksos took over the kingdom
> "without battle" as Manetho notes.
>
> Some Bible scholars place the Exodus at the end of the Middle Kingdom
> and claim that the reason why the Hyksos could just walk in was the
> pharaoh and his chariots were at the bottom of the Red Sea. Certainly a
> literal reading of the plagues and the departure of so many Jews would
> imply considerable weakening of Egypt, economically and militarily,
> leaving it open to invasion by the Hyksos.
>
> about the papyrus.
>
> Part of the text of the papyrus can be found athttp://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/homestudy/les07.htm
>
Thanks for interesting links.
>
> Part of the text of the papyrus can be found athttp://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/homestudy/les07.htm
>
Celia
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 22, 2012, 3:17:01 PM10/22/12
to
"John Cooper" wrote in message news:aekoe0...@mid.individual.net...
phenomenal.
snipped excellent analysis, but too many >> to insert.
> In short, I don't see any problem with the biblical account.
Me neither, never really could, and am quite astounded at some peoples'
inabilities to do a bit of in-depth study of their own.
Tragically few in here bother to read their Bibles systematically through
each year, so never receive the "Whole counsel of God" and all the
corresponding association of ideas.
Thus they are forever showing up their ignorance of the Bible and forever
questioning what they obviously cannot grasp or understand, of such
things which I was taught 55 years ago in Sunday School.
That is one very good thing the Christadelphians do in their S/ Schools, ,
bring their children up to understand and grasp many wonderful observations
and truths of the Old Testament..
> It makes sense
> quite literally to me.
Ditto!
I would never even consider bringing up such childish questions as they
should have been learned of many years ago.
It merely shows the shallowness, and lack of Biblical maturity as shown in
others posts, of the way other minds work who hardly ever study the "Word of
God" in it's whole entirety.
Jeff...
> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the
> exodus.
Of course it is, why people fail to work it out for themselves is quite
> exodus.
phenomenal.
snipped excellent analysis, but too many >> to insert.
> In short, I don't see any problem with the biblical account.
inabilities to do a bit of in-depth study of their own.
Tragically few in here bother to read their Bibles systematically through
each year, so never receive the "Whole counsel of God" and all the
corresponding association of ideas.
Thus they are forever showing up their ignorance of the Bible and forever
questioning what they obviously cannot grasp or understand, of such
things which I was taught 55 years ago in Sunday School.
That is one very good thing the Christadelphians do in their S/ Schools, ,
bring their children up to understand and grasp many wonderful observations
and truths of the Old Testament..
> It makes sense
> quite literally to me.
I would never even consider bringing up such childish questions as they
should have been learned of many years ago.
It merely shows the shallowness, and lack of Biblical maturity as shown in
others posts, of the way other minds work who hardly ever study the "Word of
God" in it's whole entirety.
Jeff...
John Cooper
Oct 22, 2012, 3:36:22 PM10/22/12
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k643f1$koe$1...@dont-email.me...
The reasoning for 430 years is Exodus 12:40,41; Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6;
Galatians 3:16,17.
Your comment about the generations and doubling the population is noted.
It takes 2 children per marriage to keep the population stable. 4 to double
it. They frequently begat a lot more than that in Bible days. I think that
doubling the population in one generation is the very least one should
expect, given what we are told about their fruitfulness in Egypt.
Obviously, people must be allowed to die, and are not added to the total.
However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died, Joshua
was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still had not
yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady decline in
the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
An indication of the number of generations and their lengths can perhaps be
deduced from Genesis 50:22,23.
John Cooper
news:k643f1$koe$1...@dont-email.me...
Galatians 3:16,17.
Your comment about the generations and doubling the population is noted.
It takes 2 children per marriage to keep the population stable. 4 to double
it. They frequently begat a lot more than that in Bible days. I think that
doubling the population in one generation is the very least one should
expect, given what we are told about their fruitfulness in Egypt.
Obviously, people must be allowed to die, and are not added to the total.
However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died, Joshua
was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still had not
yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady decline in
the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
An indication of the number of generations and their lengths can perhaps be
deduced from Genesis 50:22,23.
John Cooper
Alwyn
Oct 22, 2012, 5:47:29 PM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 19:32, Kendall Down wrote:
>
> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
> generations.
How do you make that out? I'd have thought seventeen and a fifth.
>
> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
> generations.
Going on that basis, your calculation will come out at just under ten
million.
Alwyn
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 22, 2012, 8:41:03 PM10/22/12
to
Celia wrote:
>>> I was referring to that on the grounds that if you read the Bible that
>>> literally there is an obvious contradiction in that we are discussing
>>> the Amalekites therefore their memory hasn't been blotted out.
> Ah, I see why we are at cross purposes. You are reading Deut.25:19
> 'You shall blot out' etc. whereas I'm on Ex. 17:14 'I will blot out'
> etc.
There's no contradiction between God saying "I will do X" and X not
> 'You shall blot out' etc. whereas I'm on Ex. 17:14 'I will blot out'
> etc.
happening unless we know (1) that it really is God speaking and (2)
that he always keeps his promises regardless of what happens. Since
#2, at least, is demonstrably untrue (see, e.g., the book of Jonah
which is all about a -- doubtless fictional -- instance of God's
failing to keep a similar sort of promise) I'm not sure how this
is supposed to require anything to be taken particularly unliterally,
and in any case how to get from "Exodus reports God as saying he'd
do something, but it didn't happen" to "the narrative in 1 Samuel
doesn't mean what it seems to" is a mystery to me.
>> Also, what do you mean by "that literally"? (For the avoidance
>> of doubt, I am not arguing that everything in the Bible should
>> be taken literally, by Christians or by atheists or by anyone
>> else.)
>
> See the references above. I admit to having trouble with the literal
> meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
You know how obstreporous atheists keep saying rude things like
"religion poisons everything" and "it takes religion to make good
people do bad things"? Well, this is why. Here we have a sensible,
intelligent, *nice* person expressing the idea that there's something
wrong with supposing that a perfectly good god would demand that
innocents be massacred -- and feeling the need to do so with
words like "admit" and "have trouble with". That is *severely
messed up*.
> No doubt the world was a better place without the Amalekites
It seems to me that there's as much evidence that the world would
have been better off without Samuel and Saul and their armies of
theocratic thugs, as that it would have been better off without
the Amalekites. Personally, I'd be extremely reluctant to say
that the world is the better for *any* large group of people's
having been wiped out. I have no wish to support genocide, no
matter how fervently the perpetrators declare that it was the
will of their god.
>> It's strange if you assume that the author of the text thought
>> genocide was a bad thing that God would never command. Almost
>> inexplicable, in fact. The obvious conclusion is that actually
>> the author of the text thought genocide was just fine when it
>> was being done to the Enemies of God.
>
> We don't know for certain the circumstances of the final author of
> the text.
appears to have thought genocide was OK if the victims were God's
enemies, and that it does sometimes happen that a whole nation
consists of God's enemies and therefore ought to be massacred?
> If I was to retell the story today I would adapt it to my
> audience and no doubt soften the more brutal bits but if I was part
> of an exiled community looking back on when life was good and feeling
> bitter about present life I might tell it with a different slant as
> a tale of God balancing the books in his dealing with the oppressors
> of the weak. Most think it was written down shortly after the exile.
the author of this story thought genocide was OK.
The people of Germany after WWI felt bitter about their present
life -- the loss of their former military glory and the punitive
(and unreasonable) reparation payments they were required to make.
I dare say that was a large part of why they were so easily
persuaded to identify other national groups as enemies and
oppressors, in need of a spot of genocide.
As that example may suggest, the fact that that way of thinking
is esay to fall into doesn't make it any less dangerous or any
more right.
>>> The Bible seems quite unembarrassed about frequently saying things
>>> that seem contradictory. They can't have gone unnoticed when written
>>> down and some of the contradictions are placed side by side quite
>>> deliberately which suggests to me that it is a 'living' word and it is
>>> not meant to replace thinking but be the means that God uses to
>>> inspire that thinking.
>>
>> But in the case we're talking about there's no contradiction.
>> One bit says "you should kill the infidel". Another says "the
>> infidel is accursed by God". Do you think these contradict
>> one another?
>
> Those bits don't but I trust that most Christians have moved to the
> place where opposing the ideas of the infidel has replaced killing
> them. Leaving the cursing to God seems better than slaughter, after
> all God is the only one who can see the whole picture.
therefore isn't a reason to read the Biblical text any less literally
than one otherwise would have. (It's a contradiction between the
Biblical text and the present attitudes of Christians, and for
the avoidance of doubt I am glad that those contradict one another.)
>>>> So killing everyone who worships other gods was right and God-inspired
>>>> at that time, but isn't now? Well, I suppose that's better than
>>>> saying it's still a good thing, but it's not at all what I took
>>>> Bob to be suggesting (about some unspecified passages in the Bible,
>>>> not necessarily this one), namely that it was never really intended
>>>> as a call for killing at all.
>
> The sort of ignorance that led to the burning of heretics. Its
> possible that in generations to come episodes like our world wars will
> be seen as equally barbaric.
equally, or at least similarly, barbaric. (Some of the actions of
some of the people involved were probably justified, though.)
> I feel ambivalent about much of the
> resorting to violence in the world today no matter how worthy the
> cause. I'm sure Bob is right that many of the calls to slaughter the
> enemy are the heartfelt cries of victims who know there isn't much
> chance of them doing any slaughtering.
power and with it the opportunity to do their own oppressing and
slaughtering. Fortunately, the victims of oppression and slaughter
do sometimes gain power. Unfortunately, they often do use it to
commit new atrocities.
I respectfully submit that stories like these in the Bible may
encourage this.
>>> Perhaps progress has to be slow.
>>
>> Several-thousand-years slow? Why?
>
> We are slow to learn the lessons of the past.
if there's a vastly powerful and wise superbeing who would presumably
prefer us to change faster, and has no objection in principle to
providing us with information and occasional miracles to encourage
us to pay attention?)
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 22, 2012, 8:50:38 PM10/22/12
to
"celia" wrote:
> The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
> on those that did it.
If Joe Schmoe kills a bunch of children then yes, I will regret the
harm it does his psyche, but no, I will not acquiesce when anyone
tells me that the really bad thing here is the effect on Joe rather
than, y'know, the dead children. (And, if Joe happens not to have
murdered them too, the anguish of the children's families.)
> If a mad king told me to kill dozens of babies
> and I obeyed I rather think that for the rest of my life they would
> haunt me.
to find your hauntedness more important than the murder of dozens
of babies.
(Pedantic note: In the particular case of very small babies, I have
seen it seriously argued that actually their deaths are much less bad
than those of adults because their minds are so far from being fully
formed in various ways. This is an unpleasant idea, but unpleasant
ideas are sometimes right. But make it, say, four-year-olds, and
that defence is unavailable. If we are to take 1 Samuel at face
value, the Israelites killed babies and four-year-olds and
eight-year-olds and everyone else pretty indiscriminately.)
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 22, 2012, 8:55:59 PM10/22/12
to
Kendall Down wrote:
> Yes, it's tough on the children, but there are three points to be
> remembered.
>
> 1. What was the alternative? You kill off the parents but refrain from
> killing the children, just go off and leave them in the wilderness -
> starving to death is so much kinder, you see.
>
> 2. Or, you adopt the children and bring up a generation that will hate
> you for what you did to their parents and will feel honour bound to
> avenge. Neither pratical nor desirable.
children, because massacring the parents left them in a rotten
situation whatever we did." What was the alternative? Well, one
alternative was not to commit the [expletive deleted] massacre
in the first place.
> 3. But what if whatever was wrong with the Amalekite parents was in
> the genes? Even if you only spared and brought up children so young
> that the problem in (2) did not arise, if the children were
> genetically programmed to evil[1], you have merely perpetuated the
> problem.
> Note 1: To what extent do genes influence our behaviour? I don't know,
> but I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, at least in a
> gross sense. We see it in studies of identical twins separated at
> birth, who commonly are wearing the same colours and styles when
> reunited, have the same or similar jobs, enjoy or dislike the same
> things, and so on.
Here's a little quiz for you.
> but I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, at least in a
> gross sense. We see it in studies of identical twins separated at
> birth, who commonly are wearing the same colours and styles when
> reunited, have the same or similar jobs, enjoy or dislike the same
> things, and so on.
You are an omnipotent superbeing. There is a group of people who
have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
your superpowers to fix their genes?
In any case, under any plausible assumptions about the amount of
outbreeding between the Amalekites and their neighbours, it's
very very implausible that they all had some kind of genetic
peculiarity that rendered them inevitably evil.
celia
Oct 23, 2012, 2:50:51 AM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 02:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> "celia" wrote:
> > The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
> > on those that did it.
>
> No. No, no, no.
O meant more important than the reasons Kendall gave for it being a
> "celia" wrote:
> > The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
> > on those that did it.
>
> No. No, no, no.
good thing to include babies and children in the slaughter. I wouldn't
have thought it necessary to spell that out!
Celia
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 3:51:35 AM10/23/12
to
On 22/10/2012 20:36, John Cooper wrote:
> The reasoning for 430 years is Exodus 12:40,41; Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6;
> Galatians 3:16,17.
I assure you that I am familiar with the verses you quote. Nevertheless,
> The reasoning for 430 years is Exodus 12:40,41; Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6;
> Galatians 3:16,17.
most scholars accept 215 years in Egypt, preceded by 215 years in
Canaan, a division which is explicitly stated in Josephus. The 430 years
therefore were wandering and oppression in a strange land, and both
Canaan and Egypt were "strange lands" to the Hebrews.
> However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
> would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died,
> Joshua was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still had not
> yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady decline in
> the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
died in 430 years, you still fall short of the two million. In addition,
although your point about families commonly having more than four
children is correct, they also commonly lost a fair number to childhood
diseases. Infant mortality could be more than 50% in those days.
> An indication of the number of generations and their lengths can perhaps be
> deduced from Genesis 50:22,23.
harmonise with 430 years.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 3:54:26 AM10/23/12
to
On 22/10/2012 22:47, Alwyn wrote:
>> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
>> generations.
> How do you make that out? I'd have thought seventeen and a fifth.
Bah. You're right.
>> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
>> generations.
> How do you make that out? I'd have thought seventeen and a fifth.
> Going on that basis, your calculation will come out at just under ten
> million.
Mind you, as discussed with John, the correct figure is 215 years, so my
mistake isn't as disastrous as might appear.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 4:13:24 AM10/23/12
to
On 22/10/2012 19:47, celia wrote:
> You could always leave the women as well as the children. Women are
> rarely as aggressive as men.
Really? Isn't there something about "more deadly than the male"? I agree
> You could always leave the women as well as the children. Women are
> rarely as aggressive as men.
that women, being smaller and weaker, are less likely to take up arms
(though see the current exhibition of female Japanese armour on in
London) but, particularly in the Middle East, it is frequently the women
who put weapons in the hands of sons, husbands and brothers and insist
on the feud continuing.
> The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
> on those that did it.
and defenceless has that effect and that there is - from that point of
view - not all that much difference between drowning kittens, killing
calves for veal, and disposing of unwanted babies.
Just out of interest, would you think that workers in abortion clinics
are similarly scarred for life?
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 4:14:32 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 01:50, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Good. But -- and I speak with the utmost respect for you -- I decline
> to find your hauntedness more important than the murder of dozens
> of babies.
I presume you campaign vigorously against abortion clinics?
> Good. But -- and I speak with the utmost respect for you -- I decline
> to find your hauntedness more important than the murder of dozens
> of babies.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 4:21:31 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 01:55, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Jiminy. "Well, you see, there was no choice but to massacre the
> children, because massacring the parents left them in a rotten
> situation whatever we did." What was the alternative? Well, one
> alternative was not to commit the [expletive deleted] massacre
> in the first place.
Indeed, but what if the massacre *was* necessary?
> Jiminy. "Well, you see, there was no choice but to massacre the
> children, because massacring the parents left them in a rotten
> situation whatever we did." What was the alternative? Well, one
> alternative was not to commit the [expletive deleted] massacre
> in the first place.
Take, for example, the situation in Italy when a colony of Muslims had
taken root in an isolated village after themselves massacring the
villagers. Left alone, they came out and raided the plains, killing and
looting. Attempt to bottle them up failed, because the village had
access to the sea and they just called in reinforcements.
In the end the Italians got together and massacred the village and
everyone in it.
What would you have done?
> Here's a little quiz for you.
> You are an omnipotent superbeing. There is a group of people who
> have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
> Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
> your superpowers to fix their genes?
desirous of fixing the genes, but b) not only respected freewill but
knew that unless people *chose* to be fixed, no amount of external
fixing would work in the long run.
> In any case, under any plausible assumptions about the amount of
> outbreeding between the Amalekites and their neighbours, it's
> very very implausible that they all had some kind of genetic
> peculiarity that rendered them inevitably evil.
that the entire society was permeated with it and although it wasn't
expressed in everyone (being a recessive gene) would inevitably come to
the fore again.
Anyway, why are you, an evolutionist, complaining about the massacre of
a few less-fit individuals? It's the only way of making evolutionary
progress - or do you not really believe the nonsense of evolution?
John
Oct 23, 2012, 4:37:53 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:55:59 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
To Ken:
getting humans to do the dirty work! (1)
>In any case, under any plausible assumptions about the amount of
>outbreeding between the Amalekites and their neighbours, it's
>very very implausible that they all had some kind of genetic
>peculiarity that rendered them inevitably evil.
One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
(1) FWIW I don't believe God did order the assassination of the
Amalekites, it was attributed to God because they were a religious
nation. (IMO)
--
John
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
To Ken:
>You are an omnipotent superbeing. There is a group of people who
>have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
>Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
>your superpowers to fix their genes?
Or alternatively make them impotent so the gene dies out. Better than
>have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
>Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
>your superpowers to fix their genes?
getting humans to do the dirty work! (1)
>In any case, under any plausible assumptions about the amount of
>outbreeding between the Amalekites and their neighbours, it's
>very very implausible that they all had some kind of genetic
>peculiarity that rendered them inevitably evil.
was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
(1) FWIW I don't believe God did order the assassination of the
Amalekites, it was attributed to God because they were a religious
nation. (IMO)
--
John
Robert Marshall
Oct 23, 2012, 4:35:11 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, Oct 23 2012, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 20:36, John Cooper wrote:
>
>> However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
>> would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died,
>> Joshua was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still had not
>> yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady decline in
>> the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
>
> That's fine, but as I said, even if you assume that not a single
> person died in 430 years, you still fall short of the two million. In
> addition, although your point about families commonly having more than
> four children is correct, they also commonly lost a fair number to
> childhood diseases. Infant mortality could be more than 50% in those
> days.
>
And takes no account of the murder of the Isralite male children - which
> On 22/10/2012 20:36, John Cooper wrote:
>
>> However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
>> would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died,
>> Joshua was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still had not
>> yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady decline in
>> the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
>
> That's fine, but as I said, even if you assume that not a single
> person died in 430 years, you still fall short of the two million. In
> addition, although your point about families commonly having more than
> four children is correct, they also commonly lost a fair number to
> childhood diseases. Infant mortality could be more than 50% in those
> days.
>
according to John's chronology started when the numbers were small (when
there were just 2 midwives)
Robert [and ignoring Ken's error in the number of generations]
--
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
-- Oscar Wilde
celia
Oct 23, 2012, 5:00:48 AM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 01:50, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> There's no contradiction between God saying "I will do X" and X not
> happening unless we know (1) that it really is God speaking and (2)
> that he always keeps his promises regardless of what happens. Since
> #2, at least, is demonstrably untrue (see, e.g., the book of Jonah
> which is all about a -- doubtless fictional -- instance of God's
> failing to keep a similar sort of promise) I'm not sure how this
> is supposed to require anything to be taken particularly unliterally,
> and in any case how to get from "Exodus reports God as saying he'd
> do something, but it didn't happen" to "the narrative in 1 Samuel
> doesn't mean what it seems to" is a mystery to me.
We are usually told when 'God changes his mind.' I wasn't entirely
> There's no contradiction between God saying "I will do X" and X not
> happening unless we know (1) that it really is God speaking and (2)
> that he always keeps his promises regardless of what happens. Since
> #2, at least, is demonstrably untrue (see, e.g., the book of Jonah
> which is all about a -- doubtless fictional -- instance of God's
> failing to keep a similar sort of promise) I'm not sure how this
> is supposed to require anything to be taken particularly unliterally,
> and in any case how to get from "Exodus reports God as saying he'd
> do something, but it didn't happen" to "the narrative in 1 Samuel
> doesn't mean what it seems to" is a mystery to me.
serious about the 'blot out the memory' thing as it amused me that
something that God said no one would remember was such a favourite
subject of atheists.
The 1 Samuel account reads as if it is history not fiction but it is
among the chapters of the book that according to the Oxford Bible
Commentary are considered unhistorical. If Jonah can be taken as
fiction with a moral perhaps this passage can also be but if all the
Bible is to be read as history then the problem remains and many more
problems as 'history' as we know it seems a genre unknown to the
Bible.
We don't know for certain that it was God speaking through Samuel when
the slaughter was ordered but we are meant to read it that way.
>
> > See the references above. I admit to having trouble with the literal
> > meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
>
> *Admit*?
>
> You know how obstreporous atheists keep saying rude things like
> "religion poisons everything" and "it takes religion to make good
> people do bad things"? Well, this is why. Here we have a sensible,
> intelligent, *nice* person expressing the idea that there's something
> wrong with supposing that a perfectly good god would demand that
> innocents be massacred -- and feeling the need to do so with
> words like "admit" and "have trouble with". That is *severely
> messed up*.
Why not be honest about the passage? It is thrown in the face of
> > See the references above. I admit to having trouble with the literal
> > meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
>
> *Admit*?
>
> You know how obstreporous atheists keep saying rude things like
> "religion poisons everything" and "it takes religion to make good
> people do bad things"? Well, this is why. Here we have a sensible,
> intelligent, *nice* person expressing the idea that there's something
> wrong with supposing that a perfectly good god would demand that
> innocents be massacred -- and feeling the need to do so with
> words like "admit" and "have trouble with". That is *severely
> messed up*.
Christians because it goes against all our ethical instincts which
Christians consider God-given. Religion makes good people do bad
things because apart from fear and the type of charismatic leadership
displayed by some dictators it's about the only thing powerful enough
to break through the barrier of conscience and self-preservation.
Religion can also make bad people do good things. Personally I would
be wary of obeying any order that goes against any of the ten
commandments regardless of whether it is relayed as coming from God
>
> > No doubt the world was a better place without the Amalekites
>
> No doubt? *No doubt*?
No doubt at all. They were bandits who hadn't got any better in the
> > No doubt the world was a better place without the Amalekites
>
> No doubt? *No doubt*?
four hundred or so years since they attacked the stragglers of the
exodus when they were at their weakest. Their king himself murdered
children.
>
> It seems to me that there's as much evidence that the world would
> have been better off without Samuel and Saul and their armies of
> theocratic thugs, as that it would have been better off without
> the Amalekites. Personally, I'd be extremely reluctant to say
> that the world is the better for *any* large group of people's
> having been wiped out. I have no wish to support genocide, no
> matter how fervently the perpetrators declare that it was the
> will of their god.
Yet our 'civilisation' has perfected far more effective methods of
> It seems to me that there's as much evidence that the world would
> have been better off without Samuel and Saul and their armies of
> theocratic thugs, as that it would have been better off without
> the Amalekites. Personally, I'd be extremely reluctant to say
> that the world is the better for *any* large group of people's
> having been wiped out. I have no wish to support genocide, no
> matter how fervently the perpetrators declare that it was the
> will of their god.
mass slaughter and sleeps at night despite the memory of Hiroshima and
other horrors. When you have accounts, such as those about the
Amalekites written centuries after the event are they any different
from our mealy mouthed justifications that Hiroshima ended the war.
The victors always rewrite history in terms of right having triumphed
because God was on their side and the truth is always rather more
nuanced.
>
>
> > We don't know for certain the circumstances of the final author of
> > the text.
>
> No, we don't. Does that make it any less true that that author
> appears to have thought genocide was OK if the victims were God's
> enemies, and that it does sometimes happen that a whole nation
> consists of God's enemies and therefore ought to be massacred?
It would seem that that is exactly what the author thought. We can get
>
> > We don't know for certain the circumstances of the final author of
> > the text.
>
> No, we don't. Does that make it any less true that that author
> appears to have thought genocide was OK if the victims were God's
> enemies, and that it does sometimes happen that a whole nation
> consists of God's enemies and therefore ought to be massacred?
all moral about it because we are looking at it from a safe distance.
I'm a liberal when it comes to the punishment of offenders but when I
learn that thieves have taken yet more of the church roof I find
myself thinking, 'I hope they fall off and break a leg.' It's a
natural instinct to want justice and without knowing the details of
the Amalekites crimes against humanity or the details of what traumas
the writer of the narrative had been through we can't judge it.
>
>
> The people of Germany after WWI felt bitter about their present
> life -- the loss of their former military glory and the punitive
> (and unreasonable) reparation payments they were required to make.
> I dare say that was a large part of why they were so easily
> persuaded to identify other national groups as enemies and
> oppressors, in need of a spot of genocide.
>
> As that example may suggest, the fact that that way of thinking
> is esay to fall into doesn't make it any less dangerous or any
> more right.
>
But it makes it more understandable and to my mind makes it more
>
> The people of Germany after WWI felt bitter about their present
> life -- the loss of their former military glory and the punitive
> (and unreasonable) reparation payments they were required to make.
> I dare say that was a large part of why they were so easily
> persuaded to identify other national groups as enemies and
> oppressors, in need of a spot of genocide.
>
> As that example may suggest, the fact that that way of thinking
> is esay to fall into doesn't make it any less dangerous or any
> more right.
>
important to find alternative ways to deal with those types of issues
and I honestly think that Christianity can be a useful tool there.
>
> > Those bits don't but I trust that most Christians have moved to the
> > place where opposing the ideas of the infidel has replaced killing
> > them. Leaving the cursing to God seems better than slaughter, after
> > all God is the only one who can see the whole picture.
>
> Right. But that's not a contradiction in the Biblical text, and
> therefore isn't a reason to read the Biblical text any less literally
> than one otherwise would have. (It's a contradiction between the
> Biblical text and the present attitudes of Christians, and for
> the avoidance of doubt I am glad that those contradict one another.)
is progress in ethics. Isn't it making God too small to think that
more of his nature won't be revealed over time?
>
> > The sort of ignorance that led to the burning of heretics. Its
> > possible that in generations to come episodes like our world wars will
> > be seen as equally barbaric.
>
> Why wait for generations to come? I think our world wars *were*
> equally, or at least similarly, barbaric. (Some of the actions of
> some of the people involved were probably justified, though.)
When you wake up to a perfect world you can be sure that you've died
> > The sort of ignorance that led to the burning of heretics. Its
> > possible that in generations to come episodes like our world wars will
> > be seen as equally barbaric.
>
> Why wait for generations to come? I think our world wars *were*
> equally, or at least similarly, barbaric. (Some of the actions of
> some of the people involved were probably justified, though.)
and gone to heaven. God's got that one planned.
>
> > I feel ambivalent about much of the
> > resorting to violence in the world today no matter how worthy the
> > cause. I'm sure Bob is right that many of the calls to slaughter the
> > enemy are the heartfelt cries of victims who know there isn't much
> > chance of them doing any slaughtering.
>
> That would be more harmless if it never happened that victims gain
> power and with it the opportunity to do their own oppressing and
> slaughtering. Fortunately, the victims of oppression and slaughter
> do sometimes gain power. Unfortunately, they often do use it to
> commit new atrocities.
We are back with the Israelites revenge against the Amelekites. They
> > I feel ambivalent about much of the
> > resorting to violence in the world today no matter how worthy the
> > cause. I'm sure Bob is right that many of the calls to slaughter the
> > enemy are the heartfelt cries of victims who know there isn't much
> > chance of them doing any slaughtering.
>
> That would be more harmless if it never happened that victims gain
> power and with it the opportunity to do their own oppressing and
> slaughtering. Fortunately, the victims of oppression and slaughter
> do sometimes gain power. Unfortunately, they often do use it to
> commit new atrocities.
were warned and the Kenites left the city, any non -combatants who
didn't want to be involved could have left with them.
>
>
> > We are slow to learn the lessons of the past.
>
> I repeat: why need it take multiple thousands of years? (Especially
> if there's a vastly powerful and wise superbeing who would presumably
> prefer us to change faster, and has no objection in principle to
> providing us with information and occasional miracles to encourage
> us to pay attention?)
>
The stories of Adam and Eve and Noah illustrate why intervention
>
> > We are slow to learn the lessons of the past.
>
> I repeat: why need it take multiple thousands of years? (Especially
> if there's a vastly powerful and wise superbeing who would presumably
> prefer us to change faster, and has no objection in principle to
> providing us with information and occasional miracles to encourage
> us to pay attention?)
>
doesn't work. A new creation, a world put right, is promised. I'm not
one of those who think we should do nothing and wait for God to act.
The new earth is a blueprint for the earth we should be working
towards here. It's reassuring to know that God will balance the books
of justice but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be his ambassadors
and make this world a better place in every way open to us.
Celia
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 23, 2012, 5:22:33 AM10/23/12
to
Kendall Down wrote:
> On 23/10/2012 01:55, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> Jiminy. "Well, you see, there was no choice but to massacre the
>> children, because massacring the parents left them in a rotten
>> situation whatever we did." What was the alternative? Well, one
>> alternative was not to commit the [expletive deleted] massacre
>> in the first place.
>
> Indeed, but what if the massacre *was* necessary?
to be worth considering much.
It might be different if there were any evidence anywhere (even
in the Bible) that the Amalekites were in fact exceptionally
wicked people. Let's look at the reasons God allegedly gives for
wiping them out. First, the most directly relevant one, in
1 Samuel 16 where the genocide itself is recorded:
| I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them
| on the way, when they came up out of Egypt.
All the Bible seems to say about "what Amalek did to Israel"
is that they attacked the Israelites when they came marauding
into what seems to have been the Amalekites' (or their allies')
territory.
How is what Amalek did to Israel worse than what Israel did
to Canaan?
So, anyway, perhaps there are better reasons elsewhere?
Exodus 17:
| Then came Amalek and fought with Israel at Rephidim.
| And Moses said to Joshua, "Choose for us men, and go out,
| fight with Amalek. [...] And Joshua mowed down Amalek
| and his people with the edge of the sword. And the LORD
| said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and
| recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly
| blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
So here it appears, again, that the only issue is that the
Amalekites fought the Israelites in the time of the Exodus.
Then there's Deuteronomy 25:
| Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came
| out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way, when you
| were faint and weary, and cut off at your rear all who
| lagged behind you; and he did not fear God. Therefore
| [...] you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from
| under heaven [...]
So, again, it's because the Amalekites and the Israelites
had a fight. Oh, and because the Amalekites had a different
god.
You might think that if the Amalekites were incorrigibly
wicked, so much so that not even God could put them right
other than by massacre, there'd be some indication of the
fact. But no, the reason Samuel is given why he must kill
all the babies is because the Amalekites' ancestors
HUNDREDS OF FRICKIN' YEARS BEFORE had fought with the
Israelites' ancestors.
> Take, for example, the situation in Italy when a colony of Muslims
> had taken root in an isolated village after themselves massacring the
> villagers. Left alone, they came out and raided the plains, killing
> and looting. Attempt to bottle them up failed, because the village
> had access to the sea and they just called in reinforcements.
>
> In the end the Italians got together and massacred the village and
> everyone in it.
>
> What would you have done?
have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
with them.
>> You are an omnipotent superbeing. There is a group of people who
>> have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
>> Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
>> your superpowers to fix their genes?
>
> You forgot to mention that a) the omnipotent superbeing was most
> desirous of fixing the genes, but b) not only respected freewill but
> knew that unless people *chose* to be fixed, no amount of external
> fixing would work in the long run.
Amalekites' free will so much that he couldn't make a change to
the genes they passed on to their children (???) but instead had
to have them all slaughtered?
That's a really funny sort of respect.
And you really can't get away with saying first that God had to
have the Amalekites massacred because their genes meant that they
would inevitably be very wicked, and then that there was no point
fixing their genes because all that mattered was what choices
they made.
> Anyway, why are you, an evolutionist, complaining about the massacre
> of a few less-fit individuals?
you haven't offered a shred of evidence that the Amalekites were
"less fit" in any sense other than that, as it happens, they got
largely wiped out by the murderous Israelites.)
> It's the only way of making
> evolutionary progress - or do you not really believe the nonsense
> of evolution?
that I really don't see any point in doing it again every time
you make it.
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 23, 2012, 5:25:29 AM10/23/12
to
Kendall Down wrote:
> On 23/10/2012 01:50, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> Good. But -- and I speak with the utmost respect for you -- I decline
>> to find your hauntedness more important than the murder of dozens
>> of babies.
>
> I presume you campaign vigorously against abortion clinics?
to be equivalent to murdering actually-born babies, either in
terms of the harm it does or in terms of what it tells us about
the character of the people doing it.
There is a considerable difference between even a 24-week-old
foetus and a newly born baby; it is not by any means just one
of size. The great majority of abortions are carried out much
earlier than that.
I would prefer there to be fewer abortions. The available evidence
says that the best way to achieve that is to make contraception
and sex education readily available. I think reducing poverty
helps, too. I'm in favour of all those things.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 7:53:30 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 10:25, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> I presume you campaign vigorously against abortion clinics?
> No, because I don't consider abortion as generally practiced
> to be equivalent to murdering actually-born babies, either in
> terms of the harm it does or in terms of what it tells us about
> the character of the people doing it.
Well, I'll respect your opinion, but personally I cannot see what
>> I presume you campaign vigorously against abortion clinics?
> No, because I don't consider abortion as generally practiced
> to be equivalent to murdering actually-born babies, either in
> terms of the harm it does or in terms of what it tells us about
> the character of the people doing it.
difference an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina makes.
If it is wrong to kill a baby when it is outside it's mother's stomach
it is just as wrong to kill it when inside.
I agree that socially it is more acceptable to do the one than the
other, but that simply shows how dysfunctional society and it's ideas of
morality are.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 8:00:50 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 10:22, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> In the end the Italians got together and massacred the village and
>> everyone in it.
>> What would you have done?
> Me? I don't know. But the question isn't so much what Saul should
> have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
> with them.
Or rather, what *Gareth* thinks God should have done with them. I note
>> In the end the Italians got together and massacred the village and
>> everyone in it.
>> What would you have done?
> Me? I don't know. But the question isn't so much what Saul should
> have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
> with them.
that, when faced with a real situation, you don't know what the solution
is, but you sure as hell know a bad solution when you see one.
You should have been a politician.
> Wait, let me make sure I'm getting this right. God respected the
> Amalekites' free will so much that he couldn't make a change to
> the genes they passed on to their children (???) but instead had
> to have them all slaughtered?
> That's a really funny sort of respect.
Alamein in the Daily Mail today. One of our boys was confronted with
three enemy soldiers who begged for their lives but refused to put their
hands up. (Interestingly, Wikipedia states that this was official policy
with one particular Italian corps.) He shot them: in old age he
regretted it, but he had no choice.
Those men exercised their freewill by refusing to put their hands up.
The Amalekites exercised their freewill by refusing to repent and turn
to God. Both got shot - there was no other option; take prisoner an
enemy who refuses to surrender and you are simply putting your own life
at risk.
>> Anyway, why are you, an evolutionist, complaining about the massacre
>> of a few less-fit individuals?
> Because I disapprove of massacres. (And also, not that it matters,
> you haven't offered a shred of evidence that the Amalekites were
> "less fit" in any sense other than that, as it happens, they got
> largely wiped out by the murderous Israelites.)
terms). Survival of the fittest, don't you know?
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 8:07:41 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 09:37, John wrote:
> One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
> was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
> God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
> people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
There were people like you and me, who choose to do wrong.
> One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
> was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
> God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
> people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
> Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
> simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
> chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
remember his name, alas). Not long after the Nazis gained power he was
approached by a Jewish consortium who offered to buy him the latest,
fastest, bestest plane and give him some large sum of money if he would
bomb Hitler at some rally. He agreed - partially for financial motives
and partly because he disapproved of Hitler - but in the end the attempt
was called off.
The interesting thing - to me - was his mature reflection on the
attempt. He was glad that he hadn't killed Hitler because a) it was
Hitler's mismanagement that allowed the British to escape from Dunkirk
and brought Russia into the war on our side; and b) because at that
early stage Hitler was still making the trains run on time (or whatever
it was that he did that was good) and the full evil of his policies was
not revealed. Had he been killed, the world would have been outraged at
this interference with the democratic process and the Nazi party would
have been strengthened, in Germany and elsewhere, and with a better
leader might have succeeded in taking over the world.
Yes, I wish God would bring the day of Satan's destruction forward, but
I am pretty confident that He knows what He is doing.
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 8:59:27 AM10/23/12
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k65ia7$4ur$1...@dont-email.me...
>> The reasoning for 430 years is Exodus 12:40,41; Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6;
>> Galatians 3:16,17.
>
> I assure you that I am familiar with the verses you quote. Nevertheless,
> most scholars accept 215 years in Egypt, preceded by 215 years in Canaan,
> a division which is explicitly stated in Josephus. The 430 years therefore
> were wandering and oppression in a strange land, and both Canaan and Egypt
> were "strange lands" to the Hebrews.
and Acts 7:6,7 (which quotes it) specifically say that the children of
Israel would be slaves and afflicted for 400 years in a land which was not
theirs. This was certainly never true about Canaan. Exodus 12:40,41 makes
best sense this way as well, in the Hebrew text. Galatians 3:16,17 tells us
that there were 430 years between the covenant of promise, given to Abraham
and his descendants, and the giving of the Law. The promises were made to
Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, most recently as Genesis 46:3, the year
that Jacob went down to Egypt. There were therefore exactly 430 years
between the last issuing of the promise, and the giving of the Law.
Secondly, just add up the years. Abraham leaves Haran when he is 75. He
has Isaac when he is 100. He dies at 175. Isaac dies at 180, 205 years
into their pilgrimage, and is buried by Jacob and Esau. Joseph is then
mentioned as a 17-year old. His brethren sell him into Egypt. He prospers
in Potiphar's house and becomes the manager. He ends up in jail. He
prospers in jail and becomes the governor. He interprets the dreams of the
butler and the baker. 2 years later, Pharoah has a dream, which Joseph
interprets. He becomes governor of Egypt. He is then 30 years old. The
pilgrimage in Canaan has lasted about 218 years so far. There are 7 good
harvests. In the first bad harvest, Joseph's brethren come down to Egypt to
buy grain. In the second year Joseph reveals himself to them, and Jacob
comes down to Egypt, 227 years after Abraham began his wanderings. Jacob is
then 130 years old. He dies when he is 147, 244 years after Abraham left
Haran. Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt.
Then the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery. Therefore Josephus
is wrong. Please feel free to check my figures. I would welcome any
corrections.
__________________________________________________________
>> However I must dispute your setting the lifespan at a mere 75 years. I
>> would prefer to set it at at around 100. Moses was 120 when he died,
>> Joshua was 110, Aaron and Miriam were very old when they died. We still
>> had not yet reached the plateau of 70 years, even though we see a steady
>> decline in the ages of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph.
>
> That's fine, but as I said, even if you assume that not a single person
> died in 430 years, you still fall short of the two million. In addition,
> although your point about families commonly having more than four children
> is correct, they also commonly lost a fair number to childhood diseases.
> Infant mortality could be more than 50% in those days.
If they could reach advanced ages, by our standards, then their overall
health was probably better too.
___________________________________________________________
>> An indication of the number of generations and their lengths can perhaps
>> be deduced from Genesis 50:22,23.
>
> You also have the ancestry of Moses in Exodus, which is difficult to
> harmonise with 430 years.
1:1), or Bezaleel's (compare Exodus 31:2 & 1.Chronicles 2:1,4,5,9,18-20), or
Ezra's (compare Ezra 7:1-5 & 1.Chronicles 6:3-15). For a more realistic
idea of how many generations there were in that period, see the genealogy of
Joshua - 1.Chronicles 7:22-27. Note also how they kept on begetting well
into old age.
John Cooper
John
Oct 23, 2012, 9:16:10 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:07:41 +0100, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 23/10/2012 09:37, John wrote:
>
>> One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
>> was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
>> God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
>> people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
>
>There were people like you and me, who choose to do wrong.
But the genes provided by Noah and hsi family were good ones weren't
they. How did the bad genes get in again?
>> Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
>> simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
>> chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
<humanisation of God snipped>
>Yes, I wish God would bring the day of Satan's destruction forward, but
>I am pretty confident that He knows what He is doing.
Removing the source of evil would surely make the world a better place
I would have thought.
People wouldn't be blinded by the gospel, Christians would become more
loving and pure because the enemy was out of the way. etc etc.
And the biggest benefit. There would either be no homosexuals or
(some) Christians wouldn't be so dead set against them or their
practises, allowing them to have the same loving relationships
hetrosexuals have.
Good result all round I would have thought.
--
John
wrote:
>On 23/10/2012 09:37, John wrote:
>
>> One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
>> was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
>> God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
>> people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
>
>There were people like you and me, who choose to do wrong.
they. How did the bad genes get in again?
>> Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
>> simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
>> chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
>Yes, I wish God would bring the day of Satan's destruction forward, but
>I am pretty confident that He knows what He is doing.
I would have thought.
People wouldn't be blinded by the gospel, Christians would become more
loving and pure because the enemy was out of the way. etc etc.
And the biggest benefit. There would either be no homosexuals or
(some) Christians wouldn't be so dead set against them or their
practises, allowing them to have the same loving relationships
hetrosexuals have.
Good result all round I would have thought.
--
John
Alwyn
Oct 23, 2012, 9:58:14 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 08:54, Kendall Down wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 22:47, Alwyn wrote:
>
>>> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
>>> generations.
>
>> How do you make that out? I'd have thought seventeen and a fifth.
>
> Bah. You're right.
>
>> Going on that basis, your calculation will come out at just under ten
>> million.
>
> Yes, 9,830,400 to be precise.
Right, but we are ignoring the inconvenient fraction. If we were to take
> On 22/10/2012 22:47, Alwyn wrote:
>
>>> Actually, no. 430 years at 25 years per generation gives you thirteen
>>> generations.
>
>> How do you make that out? I'd have thought seventeen and a fifth.
>
> Bah. You're right.
>
>> Going on that basis, your calculation will come out at just under ten
>> million.
>
> Yes, 9,830,400 to be precise.
the extra fifth into account, you'd get:
75 times 2 to the power of 17.2 = 11,292,164
> Mind you, as discussed with John, the correct figure is 215 years, so my
> mistake isn't as disastrous as might appear.
75 times 2 to the power of 8.6 = 29102
Neither figure is anywhere near the required six hundred thousand.
Alwyn
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 2:23:42 PM10/23/12
to
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> Secondly, just add up the years. Abraham leaves Haran when he is 75. He
> has Isaac when he is 100. He dies at 175. Isaac dies at 180, 205 years
> into their pilgrimage, and is buried by Jacob and Esau. Joseph is then
> mentioned as a 17-year old. His brethren sell him into Egypt. He
> prospers in Potiphar's house and becomes the manager. He ends up in jail.
> He prospers in jail and becomes the governor. He interprets the dreams of
> the butler and the baker. 2 years later, Pharoah has a dream, which
> Joseph interprets. He becomes governor of Egypt. He is then 30 years
> old. The pilgrimage in Canaan has lasted about 218 years so far. There
> are 7 good harvests. In the first bad harvest, Joseph's brethren come
> down to Egypt to buy grain. In the second year Joseph reveals himself to
> them, and Jacob comes down to Egypt, 227 years after Abraham began his
> wanderings. Jacob is then 130 years old. He dies when he is 147, 244
> years after Abraham left Haran. Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after
> he was sold into Egypt. Then the slavery starts. So there must have been
> about 298 years between Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the
> slavery. Therefore Josephus is wrong. Please feel free to check my
> figures. I would welcome any corrections.
A few additions and a correction.
Joseph died at 110, *63 years* after he was sold into Egypt.
If the slavery lasted for 400 years and the Israelites were in Egypt for 430
years, then they had peace for 30 years. We are told that the slavery
started after Joseph died. He was 110 when he died. He must have been
around 80 when his father came into Egypt as a 130-year old. Therefore
Jacob had Joseph when he was 50, at least 17 years before Joseph is sold
into Egypt. He was 67 when he lost Joseph.
*If Joseph is a 17-year old shortly after the burial of Isaac*, then Jacob
was born around 67 years before the death of his father Isaac at 180. That
would mean that he was born when Isaac was 113. This would explain how
Isaac was old and blind before Jacob left home.
Isaac got married at 40. This would mean that he and Rebekah had been
married for 73 years before they had any children. We know it was some time
before Rebekah had children, for she was known to be barren, for it says
that Isaac prayed specifically about this. Sarah had a child in her old
age, and *if we allow Rebekah to be around 20 when she married Isaac*, then
she would have had Jacob and Esau at around the same age that Sarah had
Isaac. Sarah was 127 when she died. Since Isaac married after his mother
Sarah died, when he was 40, Sarah must have been 87 at the latest when she
had him. This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
between Abraham and Sarah. Abraham went on to have another 6 more children
with another wife after Sarah's death.
Obviously there are some assumptions that have to be made, but that is the
closest I can get it so far. Any corrections from the Bible will be
welcomed.
John Cooper
> Secondly, just add up the years. Abraham leaves Haran when he is 75. He
> has Isaac when he is 100. He dies at 175. Isaac dies at 180, 205 years
> into their pilgrimage, and is buried by Jacob and Esau. Joseph is then
> mentioned as a 17-year old. His brethren sell him into Egypt. He
> prospers in Potiphar's house and becomes the manager. He ends up in jail.
> He prospers in jail and becomes the governor. He interprets the dreams of
> the butler and the baker. 2 years later, Pharoah has a dream, which
> Joseph interprets. He becomes governor of Egypt. He is then 30 years
> old. The pilgrimage in Canaan has lasted about 218 years so far. There
> are 7 good harvests. In the first bad harvest, Joseph's brethren come
> down to Egypt to buy grain. In the second year Joseph reveals himself to
> them, and Jacob comes down to Egypt, 227 years after Abraham began his
> wanderings. Jacob is then 130 years old. He dies when he is 147, 244
> years after Abraham left Haran. Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after
> he was sold into Egypt. Then the slavery starts. So there must have been
> about 298 years between Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the
> slavery. Therefore Josephus is wrong. Please feel free to check my
> figures. I would welcome any corrections.
Joseph died at 110, *63 years* after he was sold into Egypt.
If the slavery lasted for 400 years and the Israelites were in Egypt for 430
years, then they had peace for 30 years. We are told that the slavery
started after Joseph died. He was 110 when he died. He must have been
around 80 when his father came into Egypt as a 130-year old. Therefore
Jacob had Joseph when he was 50, at least 17 years before Joseph is sold
into Egypt. He was 67 when he lost Joseph.
*If Joseph is a 17-year old shortly after the burial of Isaac*, then Jacob
was born around 67 years before the death of his father Isaac at 180. That
would mean that he was born when Isaac was 113. This would explain how
Isaac was old and blind before Jacob left home.
Isaac got married at 40. This would mean that he and Rebekah had been
married for 73 years before they had any children. We know it was some time
before Rebekah had children, for she was known to be barren, for it says
that Isaac prayed specifically about this. Sarah had a child in her old
age, and *if we allow Rebekah to be around 20 when she married Isaac*, then
she would have had Jacob and Esau at around the same age that Sarah had
Isaac. Sarah was 127 when she died. Since Isaac married after his mother
Sarah died, when he was 40, Sarah must have been 87 at the latest when she
had him. This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
between Abraham and Sarah. Abraham went on to have another 6 more children
with another wife after Sarah's death.
Obviously there are some assumptions that have to be made, but that is the
closest I can get it so far. Any corrections from the Bible will be
welcomed.
John Cooper
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 2:44:55 PM10/23/12
to
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aeo5le...@mid.individual.net...
>> Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt. Then
>> the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
>> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery. Therefore
>> Josephus is wrong. Please feel free to check my figures. I would
>> welcome any corrections.
>
> A few additions and a correction.
>
> Joseph died at 110, *63 years* after he was sold into Egypt.
wrong. I always hated numbers.
John Cooper
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 23, 2012, 3:10:07 PM10/23/12
to
"celia" wrote in message
news:d2cc9b56-b0e5-435b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
breathed" know for certain in their own hearts that Almighty God commanded
the complete slaughter of the wicked Amalekites, without doubting/
questioning or faithlessly blustering against Scripture teaching.
"16 “Be quiet,” Samuel told Saul, “and let me tell you what the Lord told me
last night.”
“Speak,” Saul replied.
17 Samuel said, “Even though you don't consider yourself great, you were the
head of Israel's tribes. The Lord anointed you king of Israel. 18 And the
Lord sent you on a mission. He said, ‘Claim those sinners, the Amalekites,
for me by destroying them. Wage war against them until they're wiped out.'
19 Why didn't you obey the Lord? Why have you taken their belongings and
done what the Lord considers evil?”
20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul told Samuel. “I went where the Lord sent
me, brought {back} King Agag of Amalek, and claimed the Amalekites for God.
21 The army took some of their belongings—the best sheep and cows were
claimed for God—in order to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”
22 Then Samuel said,
“Is the Lord as delighted with burnt offerings and sacrifices
as he would be with your obedience?
To follow instructions is better than to sacrifice.
To obey is better than sacrificing the fat of rams.
23 The sin of black magic is rebellion.
Wickedness and idolatry are arrogance.
Because you rejected the word of the Lord,
he rejects you as king.”
1 Sam 15:16-23 (GW)
> It's a
> natural instinct to want justice and without knowing the details of
> the Amalekites crimes against humanity
We are indeed told the details of why Almighty God declared them worthy of
death.
"2 This is what the Lord of Armies says: I will punish Amalek for what they
did to Israel. They blocked Israel's way after the Israelites came from
Egypt.
3 Now go and attack Amalek. Claim everything they have for God by destroying
it. Don't spare them, but kill men and women, infants and children, cows and
sheep, camels and donkeys.”
1 Sam 15:2-3 (GW)
Amen!
So as we can plainly see, the Amalekites crime was not against 'humanity'
no, it was against Israel, Almighty God's favourite nation throughout the
whole earth.
"Whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye."
Zech 2:8 (GW)
So Palestinian/Hamas/Iranian terrorists..... just beware!
Jeff...
news:d2cc9b56-b0e5-435b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> We don't know for certain that it was God speaking through Samuel when
> the slaughter was ordered but we are meant to read it that way.
Those brethren & sisters of Christ, who believe that "All Scripture is God
> the slaughter was ordered but we are meant to read it that way.
breathed" know for certain in their own hearts that Almighty God commanded
the complete slaughter of the wicked Amalekites, without doubting/
questioning or faithlessly blustering against Scripture teaching.
"16 “Be quiet,” Samuel told Saul, “and let me tell you what the Lord told me
last night.”
“Speak,” Saul replied.
17 Samuel said, “Even though you don't consider yourself great, you were the
head of Israel's tribes. The Lord anointed you king of Israel. 18 And the
Lord sent you on a mission. He said, ‘Claim those sinners, the Amalekites,
for me by destroying them. Wage war against them until they're wiped out.'
19 Why didn't you obey the Lord? Why have you taken their belongings and
done what the Lord considers evil?”
20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul told Samuel. “I went where the Lord sent
me, brought {back} King Agag of Amalek, and claimed the Amalekites for God.
21 The army took some of their belongings—the best sheep and cows were
claimed for God—in order to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”
22 Then Samuel said,
“Is the Lord as delighted with burnt offerings and sacrifices
as he would be with your obedience?
To follow instructions is better than to sacrifice.
To obey is better than sacrificing the fat of rams.
23 The sin of black magic is rebellion.
Wickedness and idolatry are arrogance.
Because you rejected the word of the Lord,
he rejects you as king.”
1 Sam 15:16-23 (GW)
> It's a
> natural instinct to want justice and without knowing the details of
> the Amalekites crimes against humanity
death.
"2 This is what the Lord of Armies says: I will punish Amalek for what they
did to Israel. They blocked Israel's way after the Israelites came from
Egypt.
3 Now go and attack Amalek. Claim everything they have for God by destroying
it. Don't spare them, but kill men and women, infants and children, cows and
sheep, camels and donkeys.”
1 Sam 15:2-3 (GW)
Amen!
So as we can plainly see, the Amalekites crime was not against 'humanity'
no, it was against Israel, Almighty God's favourite nation throughout the
whole earth.
"Whoever touches you touches the apple of his eye."
Zech 2:8 (GW)
So Palestinian/Hamas/Iranian terrorists..... just beware!
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 23, 2012, 3:20:10 PM10/23/12
to
"John Cooper" wrote in message news:
> This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
> between Abraham and Sarah.
Actually just 10 years.
"17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart,
Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah,
that is ninety years old, bear?
Gen 17:17 (ASV)
Of course shameful doubters of the awesome capabilities of Almighty God will
say that is 'impossible'
Duh! .......{!o!}
Jeff...
> Sarah must have been 87 at the latest when she
> had him.
> had him.
> Obviously there are some assumptions that have to be made, but that is the
> closest I can get it so far. Any corrections from the Bible will be
> welcomed.
Actually Sarah was 90, John.
> closest I can get it so far. Any corrections from the Bible will be
> welcomed.
> This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
> between Abraham and Sarah.
"17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart,
Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah,
that is ninety years old, bear?
Gen 17:17 (ASV)
Of course shameful doubters of the awesome capabilities of Almighty God will
say that is 'impossible'
Duh! .......{!o!}
Jeff...
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 3:29:59 PM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 14:16, John wrote:
>> There were people like you and me, who choose to do wrong.
> But the genes provided by Noah and hsi family were good ones weren't
> they. How did the bad genes get in again?
Well, whether genes or not, Ham seems to have been a bad lot and his
>> There were people like you and me, who choose to do wrong.
> But the genes provided by Noah and hsi family were good ones weren't
> they. How did the bad genes get in again?
influence spread.
> Removing the source of evil would surely make the world a better place
> I would have thought.
> And the biggest benefit. There would either be no homosexuals or
> (some) Christians wouldn't be so dead set against them or their
> practises, allowing them to have the same loving relationships
> hetrosexuals have.
> Good result all round I would have thought.
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 3:37:36 PM10/23/12
to
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message news:aeo8vj...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks, Jeff. Will correct.
John Cooper
wrote in message news:aeo8vj...@mid.individual.net...
John Cooper
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 3:38:10 PM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 13:59, John Cooper wrote:
> Josephus does say this, but that can't be right. Firstly, Genesis 15:13,14
> and Acts 7:6,7 (which quotes it) specifically say that the children of
> Israel would be slaves and afflicted for 400 years in a land which was not
> theirs. This was certainly never true about Canaan.
Really? Look up the story of Abraham and Beersheba.
> Josephus does say this, but that can't be right. Firstly, Genesis 15:13,14
> and Acts 7:6,7 (which quotes it) specifically say that the children of
> Israel would be slaves and afflicted for 400 years in a land which was not
> theirs. This was certainly never true about Canaan.
> Galatians 3:16,17 tells us
> that there were 430 years between the covenant of promise, given to Abraham
> and his descendants, and the giving of the Law.
Entry into Egypt to Exodus.
> Then the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery. Therefore Josephus
> is wrong. Please feel free to check my figures. I would welcome any
> corrections.
http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/dyns/homestudy/les01.htm
> Can you prove that? Or are you extrapolating back from more recent times?
> If they could reach advanced ages, by our standards, then their overall
> health was probably better too.
else, simply because they have the strength to survive. However the weak
die off in large numbers. It is our fortune - or misfortune - that we
manage to keep the weak alive. We have cut infant mortality, but I
suspect at the cost of increasing weakness and disability among adults.
> For a more realistic idea of how many generations there were in that period,
> see the genealogy of
> Joshua - 1.Chronicles 7:22-27. Note also how they kept on begetting well
> into old age.
Kendall Down
Oct 23, 2012, 3:44:10 PM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 19:23, John Cooper wrote:
> Since Isaac married after his mother
> Sarah died, when he was 40, Sarah must have been 87 at the latest when she
> had him. This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
> between Abraham and Sarah.
In fact there was a 10 year gap: Genesis 17:17
> Since Isaac married after his mother
> Sarah died, when he was 40, Sarah must have been 87 at the latest when she
> had him. This would mean that there would have been a 13 year age gap
> between Abraham and Sarah.
Robert Marshall
Oct 23, 2012, 3:41:56 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, Oct 23 2012, "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt. Then
> the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery.
I can't see anything in Exodus 1 which implies that the slavery started
> Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt. Then
> the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery.
immediately on Joseph's death and, to me, v 7 implies the passing of
some years.
(And the 70 figure being bandied around only counts AFAICS the men a
couple of women are mentioned but they are not included in Josephus'
count)
Robert
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 4:15:17 PM10/23/12
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k66rn3$tp9$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Josephus does say this, but that can't be right. Firstly, Genesis
>> 15:13,14 and Acts 7:6,7 (which quotes it) specifically say that the
>> children of Israel would be slaves and afflicted for 400 years in a land
>> which was not theirs. This was certainly never true about Canaan.
>
> Really? Look up the story of Abraham and Beersheba.
>> Galatians 3:16,17 tells us that there were 430 years between the covenant
>> of promise, given to Abraham and his descendants, and the giving of the
>> Law.
>
> Which confirms that the 430 years ran from Abraham to Exodus, not from
> Entry into Egypt to Exodus.
>> Then the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
>> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery. Therefore
>> Josephus is wrong. Please feel free to check my figures. I would
>> welcome any corrections.
>
> If I may direct you to:
> http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/dyns/homestudy/les01.htm
is noted. Thanks.
John Cooper
John Cooper
Oct 23, 2012, 4:15:25 PM10/23/12
to
"Robert Marshall" <sp...@capuchin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87k3uh2...@capuchin.co.uk...
>> Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt. Then
>> the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
>> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery.
>
> I can't see anything in Exodus 1 which implies that the slavery started
> immediately on Joseph's death and, to me, v 7 implies the passing of
> some years.
That could be. Thanks.
John Cooper
news:87k3uh2...@capuchin.co.uk...
>> Joseph dies at 110, about 90 years after he was sold into Egypt. Then
>> the slavery starts. So there must have been about 298 years between
>> Abraham leaving Haran and the beginning of the slavery.
>
> I can't see anything in Exodus 1 which implies that the slavery started
> immediately on Joseph's death and, to me, v 7 implies the passing of
> some years.
John Cooper
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 23, 2012, 4:27:43 PM10/23/12
to
"celia" wrote in message
news:db732c20-d5a9-4e26...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Oct, 02:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> O meant more important than the reasons Kendall gave for it being a
> good thing to include babies and children in the slaughter. I wouldn't
> have thought it necessary to spell that out!
When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you don't
hope the babies will live.
Jeff...
news:db732c20-d5a9-4e26...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Oct, 02:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> "celia" wrote:
>> > The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
>> > on those that did it.
>>
>> No. No, no, no.
>> > The more important point is the effect killing children and babies had
>> > on those that did it.
>>
> O meant more important than the reasons Kendall gave for it being a
> good thing to include babies and children in the slaughter. I wouldn't
> have thought it necessary to spell that out!
When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you don't
hope the babies will live.
Jeff...
celia
Oct 23, 2012, 4:46:19 PM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 20:52, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> In fact there was a 10 year gap: Genesis 17:17
>
11 it was exactly a year later that Sarah gave birth.
> In fact there was a 10 year gap: Genesis 17:17
>
Celia
celia
Oct 23, 2012, 4:49:47 PM10/23/12
to
On 23 Oct, 21:30, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
forming.
Celia
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you don't
> hope the babies will live.
>
Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets. I don't believe a
>
> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you don't
> hope the babies will live.
>
whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
forming.
Celia
Alwyn
Oct 23, 2012, 4:51:48 PM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 21:27, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>
> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you
> don't hope the babies will live.
I am reminded of Heinrich Himmler's speech in Posen to SS officers on 4
>
> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you
> don't hope the babies will live.
October 1943 concerning the extermination (_ausrotten_) of the Jews. We
must kill them all, he said, including the children, otherwise they will
only come back and take revenge on us.
Alwyn
Alwyn
Oct 23, 2012, 4:59:19 PM10/23/12
to
'Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey.'
So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
Does Apostolic Traditionalist have any idea about why the animals had to
be slaughtered?
Alwyn
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 23, 2012, 5:50:45 PM10/23/12
to
"celia" wrote:
> The 1 Samuel account reads as if it is history not fiction but it is
> among the chapters of the book that according to the Oxford Bible
> Commentary are considered unhistorical.
author(s) intended it to be read as true.
> We don't know for certain that it was God speaking through Samuel when
> the slaughter was ordered but we are meant to read it that way.
(But this might be a good point to remind any other readers that
this all started with Bob Billing's suggestion that some of the
Bible's advocacy of massacre might not be intended literally,
with which I agreed, and that Bob's since clarified that he
was referring to passages like some bits of the Psalms, which
are quite different in character to this.)
>>> See the references above. I admit to having trouble with the literal
>>> meaning of God commanding the slaughter of non-combatants.
>> You know how obstreporous atheists keep saying rude things like
>> "religion poisons everything" and "it takes religion to make good
>> people do bad things"? Well, this is why. Here we have a sensible,
>> intelligent, *nice* person expressing the idea that there's something
>> wrong with supposing that a perfectly good god would demand that
>> innocents be massacred -- and feeling the need to do so with
>> words like "admit" and "have trouble with". That is *severely
>> messed up*.
>
> Why not be honest about the passage?
I don't understand the question. We absolutely should be honest
>> "religion poisons everything" and "it takes religion to make good
>> people do bad things"? Well, this is why. Here we have a sensible,
>> intelligent, *nice* person expressing the idea that there's something
>> wrong with supposing that a perfectly good god would demand that
>> innocents be massacred -- and feeling the need to do so with
>> words like "admit" and "have trouble with". That is *severely
>> messed up*.
>
> Why not be honest about the passage?
about the passage. What I don't think you need to do is to think
of that as an "admission".
> It is thrown in the face of
> Christians because it goes against all our ethical instincts which
> Christians consider God-given. Religion makes good people do bad
> things because apart from fear and the type of charismatic leadership
> displayed by some dictators it's about the only thing powerful enough
> to break through the barrier of conscience and self-preservation.
> Religion can also make bad people do good things.
>>> No doubt the world was a better place without the Amalekites
>>
>> No doubt? *No doubt*?
>
> No doubt at all. They were bandits who hadn't got any better in the
> four hundred or so years since they attacked the stragglers of the
> exodus when they were at their weakest. Their king himself murdered
> children.
the people who massacred them? (The very writings you're suggesting
that we not believe when they talk about the massacre?)
Incidentally, what is your support for the claim that "Their king
himself murdered children"? If you're thinking of 1 Samuel 15:33,
surely all that means is that Agag killed people in battle; look
at the second half of the sentence and notice that Agag isn't a
child.
In fact, even within the Bible, what evidence do you have that they
were "bandits who hadn't got any better"? What did they do that the
Israelites didn't do just as badly to their neighbours, even by the
Bible's own account?
>> It seems to me that there's as much evidence that the world would
>> have been better off without Samuel and Saul and their armies of
>> theocratic thugs, as that it would have been better off without
>> the Amalekites. Personally, I'd be extremely reluctant to say
>> that the world is the better for *any* large group of people's
>> having been wiped out. I have no wish to support genocide, no
>> matter how fervently the perpetrators declare that it was the
>> will of their god.
>
> Yet our 'civilisation' has perfected far more effective methods of
> mass slaughter and sleeps at night despite the memory of Hiroshima
> and other horrors.
without Hitler and his armies, or without Harry S Truman and his
advisors. Extend that to "the Germans" or "the Americans" and I
think you're *well* out of order.
> When you have accounts, such as those about the
> Amalekites written centuries after the event are they any different
> from our mealy mouthed justifications that Hiroshima ended the war.
> The victors always rewrite history in terms of right having triumphed
> because God was on their side and the truth is always rather more
> nuanced.
probably the Amalekites were better and the Israelites worse than
they're presented in 1 Samuel. (If the whole thing happened at all,
that is. I don't think it's any better to ascribe a completely
fictitious genocide to God's command than to do it with a real
one; the message, that God approves of genocide in such-and-such
cases, is the same either way.)
>>> We don't know for certain the circumstances of the final author of
>>> the text.
>>
>> No, we don't. Does that make it any less true that that author
>> appears to have thought genocide was OK if the victims were God's
>> enemies, and that it does sometimes happen that a whole nation
>> consists of God's enemies and therefore ought to be massacred?
>
> It would seem that that is exactly what the author thought. We can get
> all moral about it because we are looking at it from a safe distance.
at a safe distance. No one would be defending its approval of genocide
if the genocide had happened last week instead of (if it happened at
all) many centuries ago.
> I'm a liberal when it comes to the punishment of offenders but when
> I learn that thieves have taken yet more of the church roof I find
> myself thinking, 'I hope they fall off and break a leg.' It's a
> natural instinct to want justice and without knowing the details of
> the Amalekites crimes against humanity or the details of what traumas
> the writer of the narrative had been through we can't judge it.
her, but I bet it was a him). But the text is what it is, and it's
right there for us to read, and we can certainly judge that. Which
is what Christians across the world do week by week when they read
the scriptures in churches and say things like "This is the word of
the Lord" about them.
All sorts of things are natural. That makes the people who do them
more excusable however nasty they are. It doesn't make the things
themselves any less nasty.
>> Right. But that's not a contradiction in the Biblical text, and
>> therefore isn't a reason to read the Biblical text any less literally
>> than one otherwise would have. (It's a contradiction between the
>> Biblical text and the present attitudes of Christians, and for
>> the avoidance of doubt I am glad that those contradict one another.)
>
> It is clear that God has met each generation where they are and there
> is progress in ethics. Isn't it making God too small to think that
> more of his nature won't be revealed over time?
rate of new revelation is so terribly slow, given the awful
consequences of leaving the human race mired in error for centuries
at a time.
>>> The sort of ignorance that led to the burning of heretics. Its
>>> possible that in generations to come episodes like our world wars will
>>> be seen as equally barbaric.
>>
>> Why wait for generations to come? I think our world wars *were*
>> equally, or at least similarly, barbaric. (Some of the actions of
>> some of the people involved were probably justified, though.)
>
> When you wake up to a perfect world you can be sure that you've died
> and gone to heaven. God's got that one planned.
I can't work out how it actually works as one.
> We are back with the Israelites revenge against the Amelekites. They
> were warned and the Kenites left the city, any non -combatants who
> didn't want to be involved could have left with them.
to be massacred along with the rest of them, by strict orders from
the Big Guy.
>> I repeat: why need it take multiple thousands of years? (Especially
>> if there's a vastly powerful and wise superbeing who would presumably
>> prefer us to change faster, and has no objection in principle to
>> providing us with information and occasional miracles to encourage
>> us to pay attention?)
>>
> The stories of Adam and Eve and Noah illustrate why intervention
> doesn't work.
actually, in the crudely mundane sense of this word, *true*?)
> A new creation, a world put right, is promised. I'm not
> one of those who think we should do nothing and wait for God to act.
God to act". It's that if God's there then it's mighty strange that
he's so very very slow about acting. Perhaps "a thousand years are
as a day" to him, but while he's procrastinating for a few days
millions of people are getting slaughtered and tortured and abused,
not uncommonly in his name.
The simplest explanation for all this, it seems to me, is that what
makes God's action so hard to distinguish from inaction is that it
*is* inaction because in fact he's a figment of human imaginations.
Your opinion no doubt differs :-).
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 23, 2012, 7:26:00 PM10/23/12
to
Kendall Down wrote:
>>> In the end the Italians got together and massacred the village and
>>> everyone in it.
>>> What would you have done?
>
>> Me? I don't know. But the question isn't so much what Saul should
>> have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
>> with them.
>
> Or rather, what *Gareth* thinks God should have done with them.
that I'm giving my own opinions.
I really don't know why I attempt to have reasonable discussions
with you.
Gareth McCaughan
Oct 23, 2012, 7:29:37 PM10/23/12
to
Kendall Down wrote:
[me:]
>> There is a considerable difference between even a 24-week-old
>> foetus and a newly born baby; it is not by any means just one
>> of size. The great majority of abortions are carried out much
>> earlier than that.
[Ken:]
>> foetus and a newly born baby; it is not by any means just one
>> of size. The great majority of abortions are carried out much
>> earlier than that.
> Well, I'll respect your opinion,
That is a lie.
> but personally I cannot see what
> difference an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina
> makes.
is not an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina.
(Note: What Ken actually chose to quote from what I wrote was
not the bit preceded by ">>" above but a different bit. I have
restored the text above to make it clear how ridiculous his
response was.)
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Oct 24, 2012, 3:33:09 AM10/24/12
to
"Alwyn" wrote in message news:k670f7$e2u$1...@news.albasani.net...
Not the wild ones, you would be bitten trying to pick them up, then you
really could be in very serious trouble.
On English farms:
Webster and MacDonald (1995) studied the parasite and disease load of wild
rats on farms in England:
red text = transmissible to humans
Helminths (worms):
the oxyuroid pinworm Syphacia muris in 67% of the rats
the strongoloyd parasite Nippostronglyus brasiliensis found in 23%
the liver worm Capillaria in 23%
the cestode Hymenolepsis diminuta in 22%
Toxocara cati causing Toxocariasis in 15%
the oxyuroid pinworm Heterakis spp. in 14%
the cestode Hymenolepsis nana in 11%
the intestinal tapeworm Taenia taeniaeformis in 11%
Bacteria
Leptospira spp. bacteria causing Weil's disease in 14%
Listeria spp. bacteria causing listeriosis in 11%
Yersinia enterocolitica bacteria causing yersiniosis in 11%
Pasturella spp. bacteria causing Pasturellosis in 6%
Pseudomonas spp. bacteria causing Meilioidosis in 4%
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium parvum causing cryptosporidiosis in 63% of the rats
Toxoplasma gondii causing toxoplasmosis in 35%
Trypanosoma lewisii in 29%
Eimeria separata in 8%
Rickettsia
Coxiella burnetti evidence of infection by Q fever in 34%
Viruses
Hantavirus causing Hantaan-fever or hemorrhagic fever in 5%
Ectoparasites (note: these ectoparasites are vectors for diseases which are
transmissible to humans, such as typhus)
Fleas found on 100% of the rats
Mites found on 67%
Lice found on 38%
http://www.ratbehavior.org/WildRatDisease.htm
>> I don't believe a
>> whole race can be evil,
Well you are wrong.
Many nations God decided were too evil to remain alive, so as He created
them, He then destroyed them as examples to others, to warn them of
becoming corrupted and evil.
And for the record: "The whole world lieth in wickedness"
1 John 5:19 (KJV)
> God says:
> 'Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep,
> camel and donkey.'
> So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
So it often seems to us, mere intelligence limited humans, but it is no real
surprise when we remember and accept with all humility:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts,
and my ways are not your ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “Just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways,
and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts
Isaiah 55:8-9 (GW)
Almighty God can see the overall picture, we cannot, it's that that makes
the marked difference....{;o;}
> Does Apostolic Traditionalist have any idea about why the animals had to
> be slaughtered?
Possible as some form of "Burnt offering" as a "Sweet smelling sacrifice" to
appease His anger against the evil nation that had been condemned to
extinction for their treachery to Israel.
Jeff...
On 23/10/2012 21:49, celia wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 21:30, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you
>>> don't
>>> hope the babies will live.
>>>
>> Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets.
Duh!
> On 23 Oct, 21:30, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> When a sensible person destroys an infestation of filthy rats, you
>>> don't
>>> hope the babies will live.
>>>
>> Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets.
Not the wild ones, you would be bitten trying to pick them up, then you
really could be in very serious trouble.
On English farms:
Webster and MacDonald (1995) studied the parasite and disease load of wild
rats on farms in England:
red text = transmissible to humans
Helminths (worms):
the oxyuroid pinworm Syphacia muris in 67% of the rats
the strongoloyd parasite Nippostronglyus brasiliensis found in 23%
the liver worm Capillaria in 23%
the cestode Hymenolepsis diminuta in 22%
Toxocara cati causing Toxocariasis in 15%
the oxyuroid pinworm Heterakis spp. in 14%
the cestode Hymenolepsis nana in 11%
the intestinal tapeworm Taenia taeniaeformis in 11%
Bacteria
Leptospira spp. bacteria causing Weil's disease in 14%
Listeria spp. bacteria causing listeriosis in 11%
Yersinia enterocolitica bacteria causing yersiniosis in 11%
Pasturella spp. bacteria causing Pasturellosis in 6%
Pseudomonas spp. bacteria causing Meilioidosis in 4%
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium parvum causing cryptosporidiosis in 63% of the rats
Toxoplasma gondii causing toxoplasmosis in 35%
Trypanosoma lewisii in 29%
Eimeria separata in 8%
Rickettsia
Coxiella burnetti evidence of infection by Q fever in 34%
Viruses
Hantavirus causing Hantaan-fever or hemorrhagic fever in 5%
Ectoparasites (note: these ectoparasites are vectors for diseases which are
transmissible to humans, such as typhus)
Fleas found on 100% of the rats
Mites found on 67%
Lice found on 38%
http://www.ratbehavior.org/WildRatDisease.htm
>> I don't believe a
>> whole race can be evil,
Many nations God decided were too evil to remain alive, so as He created
them, He then destroyed them as examples to others, to warn them of
becoming corrupted and evil.
And for the record: "The whole world lieth in wickedness"
1 John 5:19 (KJV)
> God says:
> 'Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep,
> camel and donkey.'
> So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
surprise when we remember and accept with all humility:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts,
and my ways are not your ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “Just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways,
and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts
Isaiah 55:8-9 (GW)
Almighty God can see the overall picture, we cannot, it's that that makes
the marked difference....{;o;}
> Does Apostolic Traditionalist have any idea about why the animals had to
> be slaughtered?
appease His anger against the evil nation that had been condemned to
extinction for their treachery to Israel.
Jeff...
Kendall Down
Oct 24, 2012, 11:02:53 AM10/24/12
to
On 23/10/2012 21:46, celia wrote:
>> In fact there was a 10 year gap: Genesis 17:17
> 11 it was exactly a year later that Sarah gave birth.
Whether you take the statement as referring to the present time when the
>> In fact there was a 10 year gap: Genesis 17:17
> 11 it was exactly a year later that Sarah gave birth.
promise is given, or to the future time when the child is born, Abraham
says that he is/will be 100 and Sarah is/will be 90.
I think it would be contrary to plain language to suppose that he is
referring to himself in one mode to and to his wife in another.
Kendall Down
Oct 24, 2012, 11:30:34 AM10/24/12
to
On 23/10/2012 21:49, celia wrote:
> Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets. I don't believe a
> whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
> forming.
Even with psychopaths?
> whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
> forming.
Kendall Down
Oct 24, 2012, 11:31:24 AM10/24/12
to
On 23/10/2012 21:59, Alwyn wrote:
> So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
To show that the war had been undertaken because God commanded it, not
> So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
because the Israelites were running short of money.
Kendall Down
Oct 24, 2012, 11:35:15 AM10/24/12
to
On 24/10/2012 00:26, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>>> Me? I don't know. But the question isn't so much what Saul should
>>> have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
>>> with them.
>> Or rather, what *Gareth* thinks God should have done with them.
> First you ask me "What would you have done?". Then you complain
> that I'm giving my own opinions.
Well, first of all, you did *not* give an opinion - unless "I don't
>>> Me? I don't know. But the question isn't so much what Saul should
>>> have done about the Amalekites, as what *God* should have done
>>> with them.
>> Or rather, what *Gareth* thinks God should have done with them.
> First you ask me "What would you have done?". Then you complain
> that I'm giving my own opinions.
know" is counted as an opinion.
Second, you have a failure of pedantry: stating that "God should have
done" this or that is not clear evidence that God should indeed have
behaved in some particular way. It is merely your opinion that God
should have done so and so.
> I really don't know why I attempt to have reasonable discussions
> with you.
you in the past, I find it a bit rich that you complain when it is returned.
Kendall Down
Oct 24, 2012, 11:36:34 AM10/24/12
to
On 24/10/2012 00:29, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> but personally I cannot see what
>> difference an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina
>> makes.
> The difference between a 24-week-old foetus and a newly born baby
> is not an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina.
Depends on whether the newly born baby is full term or 24-week.
>> but personally I cannot see what
>> difference an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina
>> makes.
> The difference between a 24-week-old foetus and a newly born baby
> is not an hour or two of labour and an inch or two of vagina.
celia
Oct 24, 2012, 3:22:16 PM10/24/12
to
On 24 Oct, 08:40, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
bits of horse wormer, a few drops of antibiotics and a sprinkling of
louse powder. As with children, nurture and proper care can make the
difference between the socially acceptable and the menace to society.
> >> I don't believe a
> >> whole race can be evil,
>
> Well you are wrong.
> Many nations God decided were too evil to remain alive, so as He created
> them, He then destroyed them as examples to others, to warn them of
> becoming corrupted and evil.
Or alternately they were badly led and when they met the inevitable
end of those who rule badly through the abuse of power those on the
side of decent morals decided correctly that God had delivered them.
society in the whole world and which are the bad and the good is only
a matter of degree.
pillaging.
Celia
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets.
>
> Duh!
> Not the wild ones, you would be bitten trying to pick them up, then you
> really could be in very serious trouble.
Snip a list of things that could be cured with a couple of grain sized
> >> Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets.
>
> Duh!
> Not the wild ones, you would be bitten trying to pick them up, then you
> really could be in very serious trouble.
bits of horse wormer, a few drops of antibiotics and a sprinkling of
louse powder. As with children, nurture and proper care can make the
difference between the socially acceptable and the menace to society.
> >> I don't believe a
> >> whole race can be evil,
>
> Well you are wrong.
> Many nations God decided were too evil to remain alive, so as He created
> them, He then destroyed them as examples to others, to warn them of
> becoming corrupted and evil.
end of those who rule badly through the abuse of power those on the
side of decent morals decided correctly that God had delivered them.
>
> And for the record: "The whole world lieth in wickedness"
> 1 John 5:19 (KJV)
Yes, there is room for improvement in every individual and every
> And for the record: "The whole world lieth in wickedness"
> 1 John 5:19 (KJV)
society in the whole world and which are the bad and the good is only
a matter of degree.
>
> > God says:
> > 'Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep,
> > camel and donkey.'
> > So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> > animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
Samuel said God said.
> > God says:
> > 'Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep,
> > camel and donkey.'
> > So not only did the Amalekites's infants have to go, but also their
> > animals. God does move in mysterious ways!
>
> So it often seems to us, mere intelligence limited humans, but it is no real
> surprise when we remember and accept with all humility:
> “My thoughts are not your thoughts,
> and my ways are not your ways,” declares the Lord.
> 9 “Just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so my ways are higher than your ways,
> and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts
> Isaiah 55:8-9 (GW)
>
> Almighty God can see the overall picture, we cannot, it's that that makes
> the marked difference....{;o;}
Agreed
> So it often seems to us, mere intelligence limited humans, but it is no real
> surprise when we remember and accept with all humility:
> “My thoughts are not your thoughts,
> and my ways are not your ways,” declares the Lord.
> 9 “Just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so my ways are higher than your ways,
> and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts
> Isaiah 55:8-9 (GW)
>
> Almighty God can see the overall picture, we cannot, it's that that makes
> the marked difference....{;o;}
>
> > Does Apostolic Traditionalist have any idea about why the animals had to
> > be slaughtered?
>
> Possible as some form of "Burnt offering" as a "Sweet smelling sacrifice" to
> appease His anger against the evil nation that had been condemned to
> extinction for their treachery to Israel.
So the Israelites could claim not to be in it for the fruits of
> > Does Apostolic Traditionalist have any idea about why the animals had to
> > be slaughtered?
>
> Possible as some form of "Burnt offering" as a "Sweet smelling sacrifice" to
> appease His anger against the evil nation that had been condemned to
> extinction for their treachery to Israel.
pillaging.
Celia
celia
Oct 24, 2012, 3:25:43 PM10/24/12
to
On 24 Oct, 16:40, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/10/2012 21:49, celia wrote:
>
> > Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets. I don't believe a
> > whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
> > forming.
>
> Even with psychopaths?
>
Yes. The proportion of the population with the genetic make-up that
> On 23/10/2012 21:49, celia wrote:
>
> > Young rats make very pleasant and intelligent pets. I don't believe a
> > whole race can be evil, nurture is as important as nature in character
> > forming.
>
> Even with psychopaths?
>
would incline them to become psychopaths is surprisingly high but true
psychopaths are thankfully rare. Poor and absent parenting is the
deciding factor.
Celia
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages