Is the Old Testament Bloodthirsty? With Dr. Matthew Lynch

[@thomasc9036]

As an Asian who grew up on Confucianism and did not get exposed to Christianity till the late 20s, I NEVER had issues with the violence. It's the same with most Asian Christians as well. They simply accept it as God's justice. This extreme sensitivity seems more of the Western Christianity.

[@jebmassaro7370]

Yes, this makes sense. One's understanding of morality is shaped by their culture (for better or worse). I suspect many people's objections have their origin (if not their fullness) in an emotional response (whether conscious or unconscious) that says, "I wouldn't have done it that way; therefore, it's wrong." This was my experience. Learning more about the nature of God and the vileness of sin helped me see that there is no issue.

[@thomasc9036]

@@jebmassaro7370 It's not just the culture. It's also the brutality of life. The Western countries for about 100 years lived in prosperous, plentiful, and well-protected environment with very little threat from outside. Most countries experienced unimaginable pain. For example, I know a missionary couple in Turkey. They met Syrian Christians who were absolutely brutalized by ISIS, Kurds and Syrian rebels. The missionary couple were shocked by Syrian Christians praying for God's justice and vengeance upon those who kidnapped their sons and daughters, r@ped their wives, beat them mercilessly, etc. I am originally from Korea. When the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many Christians in Korea thanked God for visiting justice and vengeance upon Japan that brutalized them for 40 years. Most Western Christians will not understand this became they never experienced the pain and suffering to that magnitude. That's what's in the Bible... the pain that Israelites suffered is no different than what Syrian Christians suffered.

[@steveburris6543]

@jebmassaro7370 I wouldn't have a problem with it, but these are alleged divine commands. To accept any heinous command blindly or unquestionlingly or on faith is Never a good idea.

[@thomasc9036]

@@steveburris6543 Why is it heinous? Was it heinous for the UK and US to battle Nazis in WW2?

[@steveburris6543]

@thomasc9036 Take it from me. If any Agent. Man. God or Angel or voice inside your head tell you to Sacrifice'/kill your own Child or the Child of others....always. always tell them to do one! That's my advice for all time past present and future. I could be wrong but a chance I'm willing to take.

[@rickydettmer2003]

Gavin does such a great job at addressing these topics.

[@Davidchristian133]

Thank you for this great video! God bless you and Dr. Matthew Lynch! ❤

[@adenjones1802]

When it comes to the supposedly genocidal rhetoric, there is a crude example we could use. Suppose I wrote a love song today which had the lyrics, "I want to make love to you my baby." Now suppose that two thousand years later someone tries to translate the words as "I want to have sex with you my infant." Now, technically they got the word for word translation basically right but obviously that is a much worse reading of the text than what is intended. Its obvious to us today that thats not how to read it but it is never obvious to those who do not share your cultural background. Its stuff like this that you have to remember when considering the ancient context of the language used.

[@WaterCat5]

Why would god not write his word free of such cultural oddities that confuse people? Seems like a pretty dumb idea. At the very least, he could issue revisions to match the times.

[@HSuper_Lee]

​@@WaterCat5Why would you not think that videos like this are such revisions? As for a text that needs no revisions with time, is that even logically possible? Languages change and develop, text does not. The only way for text to change is for men to rewrite it, which is what translation and scholarship is about.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

⁠​⁠@@WaterCat5 all communication is done in context. You can't have communication free of cultural oddities, because each language itself is a cultural oddity that constantly evolves. That's why contextualization is crucial. And thankfully, that's what the faithful community has been doing for thousands of years. Revising, translating, and properly contextualizing the text. Imperfectly, but faithfully.

[@WaterCat5]

@HSuper_Lee God could just make the bible autotranslate. Not hard for an omniscient being. Videos like this are not revisions because no one agrees on them. How would an outside observer know if this video is correct? If you're a protestant, all your arguments must return to the bible. There's just no way of differentiating true from false teachings otherwise.

[@Laurensbleu]

@@WaterCat5I think the Lord did a mighty fine job with what we have. It has been able to speak to ppl over the centuries and it’s still alive today. I think it’s amazing.

[@pixelprincess9]

Thank you so much for your ministry, Dr. Ortlund. Hearing new perspectives on the Old Testament has been helpful in my faith journey.

[@dylonbeamer]

So good. Would love for conversations like these ones to be 3+ hours long. I guess this is how you get me to read the book. 😆

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

I came to faith at 31. By the time I read Joshua, I had already seen God destroy the earth in a flood, followed by 2 cities full of people with fire. So Canaan just didn't phase me, personally, as anything out of step.

[@steveburris6543]

That's called moral desensitisation!

[@thethinplace]

I also came to faith at 31 but the use of "natural disasters" as natural consequence for evil, did not hit me the way commanding "genocide did". Of course I don't believe it was genocide now but Joshua used to give me so much issue I waited over a year as a Christian to even read all the way through it.

[@steveburris6543]

@thethinplace Doesn't god commanding the destruction (devotiion to the Lord) because of the Canaanites Child Sacrifice practice by killing every man, woman , child and animal seem grotesquely ironic to you? It does me.

[@thethinplace]

It's cultural idiom and ANE war rhetoric. It doesn't bother me at all in its historic and cultural context. Like I said, I don't believe it was a genocide. It was God's support of effectively something analogous to the defeat of the Nazis.

[@steveburris6543]

@thethinplace 'it doesn't bother me at all' That is a Nazi response to slaughter of children, if I ever heard one!

[@ChristianPhilosophyAcademy]

"God's glory is found in his character" (Lynch). Love that!

[@DadHominem]

Yes there was violence in the OT. So what? Life was lived differently, both by God's people and by the surrounding nations. If someone insists on judging the past based on the present, then they are manufacturing an objection to fit their agenda - and I would tell them that. Sometimes it's just time to move on...

[@TidyWaste]

@@DadHominem Interesting point. But it goes both ways. How can those of the past, entire Bible in fact, judge the modern times. Why can the future be judged by the past?

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@TidyWaste simple: God is the judge ,and He has given his SON as an atonement for the problem of our separation from Him. He gives you the choice to accept or reject His Free Gift of Mercy or you get non- Mercy. The Bible is just a record of God's interaction with people throughout history. You're operating in a Biblical context of society right now, so God through the Bible is judging you even if you don't like it. Be happy your not living under the Law Covenant but the Grace Covenant.

[@TidyWaste]

@@davidjanbaz7728 So we can judge the past by our own standards.

[@TidyWaste]

@@davidjanbaz7728 That doesn’t answer the question. Why can past societies claim future societies are immoral? Homosexuality isn’t an immoral act in this day and age, in this society. Yet you want to use the morality of an ancient society to say it is.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

I am one who is a critic of Ortlund’s answer (in this topic, tho I am a fan of his in his other works) while I also agree with him that the text absolutely allows for the understanding of exaggeration or hyperbole. But the critique I have is that Gavin skips over the fact that exaggeration does not eliminate the principle, and at best, it just means that Israel didn’t kill as many men, women and children as atheists accuse them of, but that doesn’t take away that they still did kill alot of men, women, and children. In other words, yes I agree not all women and children were targeted.. but now you need to explain the women and children that definitely were targeted by command. This whole video got us nowhere in understanding this and never addressed it.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

Fantastic point. The fact that Dr. Ortlund does not bring this up, *after doing many videos on the topic,* leads me to believe that, like Muslims professors, many religious believers are either so stuck in a *sunk cost* after spending time and money becoming a professional believer, or psychological unable to evaluate their own religion.

[@sciencescholar3440]

Women and children were not targeted sir. That's the part of the rhetoric

[@Paul-te8gi]

Another perspective is found in THE HUMAN FACES OF GOD: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) by Thom Stark (2011) Stark rejects “all apologetic evasion. Human sacrifice and genocide are atrocities, whether we find them in the Bible or not.”

[@karl5395]

On the money Gavin, here in the UK, when it comes to current top issues that are a potential roadblock to faith.👍🏼 More like this please brother 😊

[@thomasc9036]

No...the top blocker is not about the violence in the bible. That's just a cover. It's the fact that the UK and other Western countries haven't experienced the type of pain that Middle Easter Christians or many other nations experienced. If you ever hear the prayers of Syrian Christians who want God's justice and vengeance upon those who kidnapped their sons and daughters to be used as sex slaves or r@ped their wives, or beat them mercilessly, you will know that the so-called "blockers" are nothing more than fat affluent people complaining about why God does not meet their own standard.

[@gardengirlmary]

Your Pastoral gift helps people to have honest sincere faith :)

[@michaelhebert5334]

Very helpful. Thank you.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Seeing how atheists try to twist the Conquest of Canaan I vouch for a new name of this passage: Context of Canaan

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

They are not twisting anything, when Gavin reads that Homosexual Behaviour is wrong he runs with it. When he is commanded to kill children he finds a way to make the text say something different. Atheists will help him understand that the passages with homosexuality mean something different too.

[@seeqr9]

@CafeteriaCatholicWhere are believes as a whole commanded to kill children?

[@richardlaiche8303]

There's tens of thousands of versions of Christianity and you're accusing atheists of twisting a bible story? Nobody twists scripture more than those who claim it's true. The theist inability to look at things from more than their limited viewpoint is astounding.

[@seeqr9]

@ There’s not as many “versions” of Christianity as people say. There are many differences in SECONDARY issues and how to live out the faith, but not essentials. Nearly all Protestant denominations hold to the apostles creed and the five solas and they consider all who hold to those as in the tent even if they believe each other are in error again in secondary issues. So when you apply that standard the number goes way way down to a handful.

[@richardlaiche8303]

@@seeqr9 Religion would cease to exist if people couldn't bend scripture to their will. Nobody lives their life like every verse in the bible is true and doesn't end up in prison. That in itself is a good reason to twist the words.

[@pseudomastix2916]

Im confused, so did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanite children or not?

[@richardlaiche8303]

The flood story is a clear indication that god doesn't give a crap about killing innocent children.

[@sciencescholar3440]

no

[@riverjao]

“God is like Jesus. God has always been like Jesus. There has never been a time when God was not like Jesus. We’ve not always known this, but now we do.”

[@jtbasener1810]

Thank you so much for this! I will surely listen to the whole thing as this is the #1 criticism I hear from skeptics today. My best of wishes and prayers be with you, dear friend.

[@stephenbailey9969]

Exactly. People don't want God or any accountability. In this age, the concepts of sin and judgement are hated. (I was no different for most of my life.) This world with war, genocide, enslavement and oppression is the result of exactly that desire to be free of God.

[@lisacawyer6896]

Great topic! I agree that it's an important one for apologetics in our current times. I've found it interesting that while in some places we see the "strong and courageous" language with Israel as conquerors, in other places it talks about God going before them (either via the Angel, or the bee/hornet - Ex 23, Deut 7, Josh 24) to drive the people out; and in still other places it says that they will conquer "little by little" (also Ex 23). It almost makes me wonder about possible different sources for the book. It's very odd. Finally, as a punishment, God says He will not drive the people out after all (Josh 23:13; Judges 2:1-3:6). Murder hornets? Africanized bees? Or the "bee" symbolic of the Sea Peoples or the Angel? I have read (assuming a late date for the Exodus) the population was indeed much lower before the Israelites arrived. Was this a result of sea people invasion (Deut 2:23) and Egyptians abandoning Palestine in the wake of the Bronze Age Collapse? Or a literal wasp infestation to the "land of milk and honey?" I love Eric Cline's work (by the way, in "After 1177" p37 he discusses an industrialized bee keeping facility recently discovered), but I still have so many questions. Were the Nephilim practicing selective human breeding and/or their greater statue a result of better nutrition? And why in Gen 14 while Abraham is clearly living among the same giant tribes described in Deut 2, why do they need Abraham to come to their rescue? I could go on and on. I am a question machine when it comes to the early parts of the O.T.

[@kylie5741]

Very important topic!

[@ahumblemerchant241]

I believe reading Deut. 9:1-5 is always helpful. 1. The Israelites are fighting a nation greater and stronger than themself. 2. They are not being given the land as a reward for their own superiority or because they're inherently better than the Canaanites. 3. The land is being removed from the Canaanites due to wickedness. Genocide is the wanton extermination of an ethnic group on the basis of their ethnicity--the Conquest of Canaan was divine punishment for unrighteousness irrespective of ethnicity, with Canaanites like Rahab being spared and Israelites like Achan being destroyed. As Christians, we believe Christ will come with an army of His angels and saints on final judgement, inflicting eternal consequences far greater than Canaan on the basis of righteousness and faithfulness. Joshua is our prototype to this judgement, with our example, Rahab, being spared for faith in God.

[@Paul-te8gi]

So were Canaanite babies slaughtered because they were wicked?

[@joeoleary9010]

We still live in a society where we condone civil authorities using deadly force to keep order. And we *always* will live in such a "bloodthirsty" society, because the alternative will quickly lead to the strong dominating the weak. All the major religions of the world condoned use of deadly force to keep civil order -- even Buddhism, as the Buddha aligned himself with powerful kings. The OT's morality is straightforward. It's those who preach pacifism who are inconsistent and hypocritical.

[@stephengray1344]

Actually a lot of us don't live in societies where we condone civil authorities using deadly force to keep order. Very few countries still use the death penalty. And the countries where the strong have the least domination over the weak (Western democracies with strong welfare states) are the ones least likely to use the death penalty.

[@MarkPatmos]

I think it is easy to judge God on what we perceive are all the facts, even with regard to Bible accounts such as Conquest of Canaan. But in Book of Job I think Job is unaware that God has made an agreement with Satan, where Job may not even be aware of Satan and doesn’t understand what God is doing. Maybe we should be humble and accept we aren’t aware of all the facts to be able to judge God.

[@Paul-te8gi]

An enlightening book on the topic is DISTURBING DIVINE BEHAVIOR: Troubling Old Testament Images of God by Eric A. Seibert.

[@OldThingsPassAway]

I am just a layman bringing my own opinion to the discussion, but when I read the passage of the destruction of the Midianites, I could not help but notice this phrase to Moses: "Then I will gather you to your people," meaning, he will die. I think Moses just got a bit too ambitious knowing that he was soon to die (not to mention that Moses would have been reminded that he would not be able to enter the promise land because he struck the rock rather than speak to it). What it shows to me is actually grace because Moses is the focal point in this story and it is as if the Bible is showing that Moses lost his meekness at that moment. Just some reflections as I read through this story in December.

[@bradbrown2168]

Unseen Realm a scholarly work by Dr Micheal Heiser.

[@NotWhatiPlanned]

I recommend Fr. Stephen de young's book: God is a man of war. His interview on the book over at Orthodox Shahada is a great exposition on the ideas in the book and is also very entertaining.

[@NotWhatiPlanned]

He also did an interview with Gospel Simplicity

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Bias goes both ways when it comes to violence in the Bible

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

Indeed, that is why the comparison with neigbhouring nations can be helpful. It turns out Gods law isn't better than the law of neighbouring countries.

[@seeqr9]

@CafeteriaCatholiconly if you focus on the similarities and ignore the differences.

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

@@seeqr9 You are right Hammurabi was more merciful than Yahweh. Debt slaves only needed to work for 3 years in his kingdom.

[@seeqr9]

@ not merciful on the one owed the debt…

[@zakbailey7404]

@CafeteriaCatholic I think Gavin has a video on this that you might find helpful where he does compare surrounding nations

[@Yaas_ok123]

Write more books !

[@christiancampbell2460]

It all boils down to the character of God. The more you understand Him the more this subject makes sense. The less you know God, the less sense that this subject is going to make for you. Also ancient rhetoric plays a huge role as well

[@iaai6195]

I ❤ On Script!!!! This is so good ❤❤❤

[@jebmassaro7370]

I had trouble with this concept previously. Once I realized that (1) God has the authority to judge sinners, (2) no sinner has the right to life*, and (3) judgment via means is legitimate, the passage didn't trouble me intellectually anymore. I would like to hear contrary opinions. *relative to God. We have a kind of right to life relative to fellow man, because man does not have the authority to judge sinners apart from God's authority.

[@hrayrbarseghyan5453]

Thank you very much. For me the idea of rhetorics finally made sense why Joshua feels so obscure. They are "sparing none alive", yet in the next chapter those non alive people require to be driven out. Mass judgement always made sense to me, I mean, it is probably better to be dead than live in those societies. God is allowing societies to choose their ways, but there are lines that should not be crossed. What was strange is why in Canaan humans were used for judgement. For Flood it was water, for Sodom ans Gomorrah it was fire, but for Canaan - Israelites? The war rhetorics make much more sense. Because essentially it was not a mass jugdement, more geopolitical control. Apostle Paul was saying that God establishes borders and times for nations. Using lesser evil to opress bigger ones. The same way Assyria was an axe for judgement against Isreal for idolatry.

[@charlesbivens6757]

Wow. I placed two other messages on here and they were deleted.

[@TimC1517]

This happens to me quite a bit, on a number of different channels, and I can’t figure it out, I’m not using profanity or slurs… sorry it’s happening to you too!

[@Presbapterian]

Or probably it's just that you cannot see it. This happens with KZbin and the way it displays comments, especially in the phone app.

[@elzoog]

25:48 paraphrasing "An Iraqi brags that he destroys a whole town then we discover that the town is not in fact, destroyed" You mean like the city of Tyre that God brags he will destroy and it will never be rebuilt? In fact, you can go to Tyre today. It has an economy that is not entirely dependant on fishing. In fact, it has contracting services and makes money in construction. I'm sore others will come up with excuses for this.

[@clarkcoleman8143]

Just as elsewhere, "destroy " is hyperbolic. A large portion of Tyre has not been rebuilt, to this day.

[@elzoog]

@@clarkcoleman8143 So which do you think is more developed? Tyre in the year 300 BC, or Tyre today?

[@clarkcoleman8143]

@@elzoog What difference does that make? Tyre was conquered more than 2000 years ago, and part of it was destroyed and never rebuilt. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric of that time and place, the outcome more than satisfies the prophecy. The island portion of Tyre was considered impregnable, meaning the prophecy probably sounded absurd at the time. The conquest was one of the most remarkable feats of Alexander the Great. An improbably prophecy came true. As for your question, a smaller percentage of the land area of Tyre today is developed than when the prophecy was made, but the redeveloped area is more modern, obviously.

[@elzoog]

@@clarkcoleman8143 "and part of it was destroyed and never rebuilt." But the verse doesn't say only part of it will never be rebuilt. That would be like saying that tomorrow you will die and your body will never be rebuilt. Then 7 years later, it becomes true! Because certain cells in your body will die tomorrow, and because all of the atoms of your body recycle every 7 years, NO atoms are the same. So see there? It's true that tomorrow you will die and never be rebuilt by that logic! "a smaller percentage of the land area of Tyre today is developed than when the prophecy was made," Yeah, people in 300 BC Tyre had it SO MUCH BETTER than people living there today! Isn't it great how you can make excuses for "prophecy"?

[@clarkcoleman8143]

@@elzoog That's called "exaggeration." The whole point of that section of the video is that exaggeration was commonly employed in descriptions of military victories in that culture. Not just in the Bible; in surviving monuments and writings from surrounding cultures. The people of that time and place would not take such exaggerations literally and think it was an "error" if there was exaggeration.

[@MarkPatmos]

Maybe the description of God in the Bible may both be God revealing Himself but also is shaped by the perspective of those writing the Bible.

[@nicklausbrain]

inspiration is not dictation. all theology is analagy. all analogy is culturaly-specific.

[@StephenOrmerod]

Gavin, could you do a Video on how the Jews believed in the merit of their ancestors , the idea of zechut avot and how it dosen't support purgatory indulgences and the RC Churches own notion of a " treasury of merits" thanks

[@calmingwavesjulian]

Why didn't God punish Moses, if went he beyond God's command.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

moot point, cause neither does the text say He didn’t punish him. (though i would argue God did punish Moses based on Deuteronomy’s account- see my video on the Midianite Massacre for that argument)

[@Jiu-jitsu4all]

I don’t understand the problem with divine violence. We should be afraid of God’s wrath

[@Telorchid]

Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. He was supremely nonviolent in the Incarnation. Yes, there is judgment in the eschaton, but when someone sees Jesus welcome little children, and then understands YHWH to be commanding genocide, questions must be asked. Additionally, why was it okay for the Israelites to be violent but now we must pray for those who persecute us? These are honest questions, even if we take negative judgment seriously.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@TelorchidJesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, said he came to bring a sword and divide, referred to judgement and hell, overturned money lenders tables and argued with religious leaders. So not as completely simple as you put it. Also as stated in video was an actual genocide committed? Jesus' understanding of the Law is the two greatest commandments are love for the Lord and love for your neighbour, so possibly Jesus might be against 'genocide'.😅

[@NonDisclosed-x3j]

Great discussion, but it takes way too long before you get into the meat of the topic.

[@navayana]

Regarding Numbers 31, according to many scholars, not everything Moses commanded was God’s will, a view which seems to be echoed by Dr. Lynch. Isn’t this what Jesus also taught, that Moses gave the command about easy divorce because of hardness of heart? It is popular to ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” Maybe we can also ask the question, “How would Jesus interpret Numbers 31?”

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

Welp…Now you have to do a video on nephilum and Gen 6. Come on Gavin - you don’t have to commit to an opinion but it’s in the Bible Bro!

[@newtonfinn164]

I began my walk under the gaze of God by believing that the bible contained His words. But years of bible study, on both the personal and professional levels, gradually convinced me of what now seems a patently obvious fact: that the bible, while containing inspirational and perhaps inspired passages, is a very human book about God, not divine dictation to humans. I can't make the case in an internet comment, but I'm also convinced that Jesus, although he clearly stood in the OT prophetic tradition, thought similarly about the fallibility/malleability of scripture. "You have heard it said, but I say to you...."

[@DM-ks1pj]

The violence of the OT has everything to do with Bronze Age ethno-conflict and nothing to do with anything metaphysical.

[@hazelora]

Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed

[@MelHull-l8r]

Great stuff, I appreciate the efforts to remove these kinds of roadblocks. I have a feeling though, that if we were to give these arguments to acquaintances and friends it would sound like we're just making up excuses, unless we had happened to do all the research ourselves that you two scholars have done. But hey, Gavin, why so grim? I've noticed, not just in this video but in many, you have a kind of worried expression, with furrowed brows. When your guest is talking it looks like you are considering all the things they are getting wrong, when actually it's the opposite. Just an observation, I don't suppose it's very easy to alter one's unconscious facial expressions.

[@jacobbeckmarketing]

I've been enjoying watching your series on Old Testament violence. I find myself unconvinced however. There are many other examples of Old Testament violence where God kills innocent people directly, where these rhetorical themes are not present. I appreciate Dr. Eric Seibert's book: Disturbing Divine Behavior. I would love to see him in conversation with Dr. Lynch or yourself. I think his view is a more honest assessment of divine violence.

[@charlesbivens6757]

Can you give me the verses and texts where God kills innocent people? Thanks.

[@COOlguy-ed5bq]

like when

[@seeqr9]

What makes murder murder is unjust killing or taking a life that doesn’t belong to you without justification. All lives belong to God so him taking a spill from one state of being to another isn’t immoral.

[@Paul-te8gi]

The Old Testament says that the Hebrews annihilated all the men, women and children in various towns at God's instruction. Matthew Lynch suggests that destruction was just rhetorical or exaggerated and never really happened. That means those passages that says they did are false. So the defense of the described genocide is that the Bible is in error, which is an unexpected argument from those who embrace Biblical innerancy.

[@sciencescholar3440]

this shows u don't understand their way of expressing themselves... idiot, all the Near Eastern Cultures used war rhetoric... In the menerpthah stele , Pharaoh says Israel is no more.....but we know Israel survived.

[@MarkPatmos]

I think you could also view it as unfair at an individual level how at a later time Israel is punished by being conquered by Assyria and Judah is taken captive by Babylon. The world is a fallen world where maybe collective punishment might seem excessive and maybe even is at an individual level.

[@svenskbibel]

I am still waiting for a theologian who is willing to defend a literal interpretation of the historical “genocidal” texts in the Bible. I have heard enough of those who, for various reasons, explain them away in intricate ways. The humble Dr. Matthew offers nothing new in this regard. But it was still nice to listen to him.

[@ninjason57]

Why do you want a defense of the literal interpretation?

[@collin501]

What is your view of the texts and are you a believer?

[@svenskbibel]

@@ninjason57 Because the "genocide" texts are not poetry but prose, they are historical texts meant to be understood according to common historical criteria. And historical texts are usually interpreted literally, not metaphorically or speculatively. And the “problems” Matthew and Gavin cite with literal interpretation can easily be overcome without abandoning the historicity of the texts.

[@ninjason57]

@ interesting. So could you give an example of a possible explanation for why the text will say a group was annihilated yet those same people show up later in the narrative while maintaining a literal interpretation?

[@collin501]

@@svenskbibel what are your solutions?

[@jasonabbott521]

Numbers 20 and 27? Same event. One instance. Not a pattern of disobedience. Not sure what the point is.

[@J-bw4sr]

I can’t help to think this podcast missed an opportunity to talk about the current genocide going on in Israel now…is it because they are in a pot Evangelical bubble…or is it audience capture because Evangelicals are so pro Israel they don’t want to upset their listeners? This was too much of a safe discussion on genocide when you consider people are suffering one right now

[@ghostlyyt9167]

Or the video just did what it said it would? I’m not sure the purpose of the video was current issues but instead the integrity of scripture.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

This is where the concept of myth is important and helpful for religious believers. Parts of the Bible are mythic, that is, meant to teach broad lessons and ideas. And there's no reason to fear that mode of interpretation. The discussion in this video admits that many of the things stated, for instance, about the Canaanites were rhetorical and literary-that's the same kind of thing. It's hard for me to understand why some people are more comfortable believing that God would command certain things that literally violate God's own moral principles than they are believing that the Bible could speak mythically, symbolically, and pedagogically.

[@TihorSam]

I think when we implement such a criteria to understand the bible, where do you draw the line? If we are gonna just make certain parts of the bible, that are indefensible or mysterious, as mythical and symbolic, doesn't that put the faith in a bad light. Idk these parts of the bible are always hard for me to wrap around. I just feel like job who couldn't understand God's justice and sovereignty.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@TihorSam The guiding criteria is two-fold: (1) Scripture itself. God cannot do the indefensible. "Will the judge of all the earth not do justice?"-Gen 18. (2) Human reason, given by God. And this is related to the fact that Scripture is given in time, but is meant to last for all time. So our understanding of it must grow and change.

[@DJRoll15]

Such a great informative video. I was looking for ways to combine the rhetorical usage of the warfare language along with the idea of spiritual warfare that has to do with the nephilim. I think Dr. Heiser makes a good case of why Nephilim had to be destroyed but I also saw the points in which Dr Ortland made about the rhetorical language. I believe Dr Lynch did a great job at combing both and helped me think about it more.

[@tedclemens4093]

Looking at the genocides in the Bible (I won't mince words), there are some things to note. Prior to the first genocide (the flood) God intervened with counsel (as with Cain), but was otherwise lassez-faire regarding his image and likeness. Human society ended up in relentless wickedness and violence. The flood was an act of regret and grief, not justice and wrath. (It was for mankind's sake that God put an end to it.) Post flood, God intervened, separating peoples into groups and calling out one group through Abraham to lead to the solution. (Grace doesn't bully, so this would take generations to fulfill.) Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction later on were also acts of grief. Israel, acting in authority of God, destroyed the corrupt Canaanite peoples for the same reason as the flood-to put an end to the relentless iniquity. God's wrath per se, doesn't show up till the days of the Exodus. And then it's exhibited first toward those covenanted with a mission.

[@codytempleton3512]

I’m just not sure why this is so concerning for some people. Maybe my approach is too simplistic, but the way I see it is very straight forward. God is supreme, righteous and sovereign over his creation. He is perfect, Holy and blameless in all ways and in all things and his very nature demands perfection and Holiness, so he has a right to enact judgement upon his creation that rebelled against him, and he can utilize whatever means necessary to bring about his will. I means that’s kinda the whole point of salvation right? His wrath must be poured out upon the world and it will be, but because he loved us he sent his son to spare us from his own wrath which will fall upon the world and his perfect judgement that will inevitably sort mankind and cast those into the lake of fire who rejected his peace offering. It just doesn’t seem like that big of an issue to me. It’s mankind’s desire to see false righteousness and false innocence in people that drives us to think that it could ever be unjust for God to commit entire populations to death, or judgement by way of military action to fall upon them. The fact is that we are evil in nature and deserve judgment, and God has a right to do that however he sees fit.

[@SuperSaiyanKrillin]

You don't see the issue in God commanding Israelites to put infants to slaughter ? no moral qualms whatsoever ?

[@Dizerner]

Let you know what I think, huh. I don't think you really want to know. But there are clear indications the people IN THE TEXT themselves did not take it metaphorically many times, which ruins the theory completely.

[@danocinneide1885]

Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for her...Eph 5.25

[@PabloJMonat]

I do not like to make contrary reviews. I see a lot of problems in this lecture and the first is the literal historical interpretations. I Just recommend someone who want more scholarly views on this see Joel Baden at Yale University.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

I wonder why an all-wise God who wants us *to rationally, NOT emotionally* see which religion is true, would make humans not naturally perfectly rational, but cursed to be naturally, extremely emotional and biased, and naturally prone to fallacies--then get upset that some humans choose Hinduism or Islam.......does God really make sense?

[@maryangelica5319]

well for one, emotions and reason are not contraries, so your first premise is off... and I say this as one who tilts very highly towards rationalistic approaches to answering such questions.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

@@maryangelica5319 I thinking emotions point us towards wants, reason points us to logical study of facts; under my understanding, emotions can only luckily point you to truth, but reason well learned (which humans have to learn unlike emotion) points you to truth--what do you think maryangelica?

[@adedaporh]

On the Numbers 31 passage, I think it is ridiculous to claim that God _may_ not be happy with Moses action as your guest himself noted that God showed up later to help share the spoils (which included the virgin girls and presumably the boys have already been slaughtered). It stretches incredulity to believe that Moses has acted in anyway beyond God's command when God himself doesn't bring it up. Besides the non virgin women that were killed are the once blamed for the seduction (never mind that it was actually Moabite women). So I see no reason why God will have an issue with their slaughter (after all he is the one that reminded Moses).

[@calmingwavesjulian]

Great point!

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

There is PLENTY of evidence in the text that proves Moses was wrong in that Numbers 31 order. I made a whole video on it on my channel (see episode 5 of playlist “violence, warfare, and biblical law” titled “the midianite massacre”

[@adedaporh]

@@toughbiblepassages9082 Thanks! I will check it out.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

​@@toughbiblepassages9082 *I'll watch your video. *Also, don't you think even if a God was all-knowing, He would not actually be able to prove it to Himself. Like how would God prove He was not a program in a computer? And if God can't *know for sure, He can't exercise authority over us, right?*

[@WaterCat5]

Of course the OT is bloodthirsty. God literally demands blood sacrifices. This isn't something that can be denied. And let's not pretend that every murder he commanded was justified. He killed plenty of infants, for one.

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

God has perfect knowledge, and is the arbiter of morality. Every instance of killing any group was given with ample preparation and the ability for them to repent of their wickedness, and none ever did. Jesus will resurrect and reign while smiting the wicked, do you think they haven't had ample time to repent?

[@WaterCat5]

@AlexDestroyerOfEarth Must be nice to just assume your god is perfect a priori. What exactly is your argument? That god cannot do unjustified killing because everything he does is justified? I think that in infant who died in the womb during the flood did not have ample time to repent. Shocking, I know. I also don't think people from 100,000 years ago were given ample information to repent, given that the bible wasn't even conceived of. Idk how you can support this unless you seriously believe in natural theology.

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

@WaterCat5 moral foundations are placed upon God. You are using morals that objectively occur as a consequence of God to attempt to judge Him. The irony is interesting.

[@JekDrummerTime]

@WaterCat5. You're against God killing infants then I'm assuming you're against abortion?

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

@@JekDrummerTime you know he won't be. Probably pro eugenics as well.

[@TidyWaste]

God: "I am not the author of confusion." the Bible, written inspiration from God: "Yeah. I'm going to say I annihilated a village, but that just means I got a really sick burn on them."

[@Laurensbleu]

My sheep hear my voice…

[@Telorchid]

It's an incomplete level of translation. When you translate the language and not the culture, this is bound to happen. When there are distances of thousands of years between text and translation, this is normal. If we understood it easily or completely (and it was all to be taken simply at face value in translation), it would be called a conspiracy.

[@TidyWaste]

@@Telorchid where in the Bible does God says the Bible is an incomplete translation?

[@ninjason57]

Maybe the confusion is due to the human limitation, not God's authorship

[@TidyWaste]

@@ninjason57If you are writing a story or children and they can’t understand it because you are writing it at a collegiate level, who’s at fault? Who is the author of confusion?

[@ConservativeMirror]

27:22 "It was not utterly annihilated." You don't have to kill 100% of the members for it to be genocide.

[@connerdozier6689]

You don’t know the difference between a war and a genocide. And where’s your outcry for the genocide the Canaanites were committing?

[@lalumierehuguenote]

Concerning the argument that what Moses did was not God's command. Why did not God condemn it?

[@clarkcoleman8143]

Many evil acts are narrated without condemnation, because the reader was given credit for being able to judge the acts. There are countless examples.

[@JohnMaximovich-r8x]

@@clarkcoleman8143 Indeed. This is true of polygamy too. Now, the Bible does tell the Israelite kings that they aren't to "multiply wives" but generally, if you read the story of men like Abraham or Jacob carefully, you'll see that the Bible is condemning polygamy. God is showing us the familial consequences of having more than one wife. The family strife is evident.

[@jj4829]

he did not add any real insight tbh compared to what Gavin has already said in the past. also, presuppositionialism is the strongest argument against any other worldview

[@collin501]

1. Can you address the issue of Saul being condemned by Samuel for not killing all life? Since that leans in the literalistic direction. 2. Can you address the moral implications of letting women and children live in a world based around heads of families, rather than in modern states where women and children can be cared for apart from the patriarchs of their clan? 3. In the ancient people’s mental framework (noting the fact that their moral intentions are based on their mental framework), was killing a child an act (in their mind) toward the child, or rather wasn’t it the case it was toward the father? It was always known(even then) that killing innocents was wrong. But it seems that killing the family was part of the act of killing the guilty head (such as with Achan), rather than making the family members as innocent individuals existing apart from the family as we do in the modern psyche. (Not that God preferred the ancient system. But because it was a real system, it seemed to entail certain things we don’t have in our modern world.) The seeds of change were in the prophets (Ezekiel 18), but the ancient world seems to be structured differently. 4. Can you comment on whether it’s okay to create a creature where all its descendants become corrupted through the head (ancestor) through no choice of the descendants? And please address whether it’s okay (or even required) to kill the descendants because of their corrupt nature, regardless of whether they exercised choice? I’m thinking of children who have not committed evil intentionally, but may have an inherited corruption which will turn into evil once they are grown up. Whether or not we like this thought, I think it’s a necessary question to be answered. 5. Can you comment on whether the OT, on average, is concerned more with corporate groups of people? I’m thinking the plague killing the people due to David’s sin. I prefer the view that kids dying before the age of accountability have a favorable resurrection, based on the justice of God. But I also see that the whole world is full of sin, and after thousands of years we haven’t created a utopia. Because it must be universal that human nature becomes more corrupt as it ages, so on that basis humans are judged worthy of death, regardless of age. However, this does sit in tension with the statement of Jesus regarding children, “of such is the kingdom of God.” That is, children are loved rather than hated.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

I made a playlist on my channel called “violence warfare and biblical law”. I address in that series the conquest of canaan, numbers 31, king saul and the amalekites and more. I face the text head on and don’t shy away from it. The answers I offer are intellectually satisfying and systematically consistent.

[@knuerr]

Daily Wire- The Gospels. Beautiful

[@niccolopaganini1782]

Its paid 😭

[@knuerr]

@ some are on you tube.

[@jessestone117]

13:54

[@bradbrown2168]

I’m glad to hear another academic discuss a spiritual dimension of the Anakim.. Nephilim. My push back is thd text does not describes the Watchers as rapists. Seven h shed light on the notion of secret knowledge given to mankind by the Watchers And the women given in marriage. You give me your daughter to bear my progeny and I’ll give you secret knowledge.

[@Telorchid]

To be fair to them, Genesis 6 does not emphasize the secret knowledge, that seems more subtext based on (e.g.) 1 Enoch and apkallu stories. What is emphasized, I would argue, is the 'see and take' motif which occurs with Eve in the Fall, Lot looking over the land, Sodom and Gomorrah, Potiphar's wife looking at Joseph (in fact this story recapitulates the Fall, as man and woman are each other's forbidden fruit) suggesting something nefarious is afoot with either elohim-human unions, sexuality, rebellion, or some combination of these things. One could argue that arranged marriages could fall in a gray area -perhaps nonviolent, coercive rape could be in view.

[@francispena2818]

U have adorable eyes

[@bradbrown2168]

I’m glad to hear another academic discuss a spiritual dimension of the Anakim.. Nephilim. My push back is thd text does not describes the Watchers as rapists. Seven h shed light on the notion of secret knowledge given to mankind by the Watchers And the women given in marriage. You give me your daughter to bear my progeny and I’ll give you secret knowledge.