****************************************************************************** **
><< Additionally, the Midianites merely suffered consequences of breaking
the
>Law.>>
>
>And as I just noted, many of them (children & babies) suffered the
>consequences of the actions of others. This would be a clear violation of
>Yahweh's decree that says that children should not suffer for the sins of
>their fathers (Dt. 24:16, Ezek. 18:20). Please explain, because if this is
>not a glaring biblical discrepancy, I must be pretty dense.
Well, I don't know about dense, it most likely goes back to what I said about the structure of the Bible and Spiritual discernment. Let's take them in order: Dt 24:16... 1. The passage was written after Numbers. (Minor) 2. The passage is a precept by which the legal system (Law) of Israel would function once they were established in Canaan: It was not the right of the human courts to exact capital punishment from the children of guilty parents if the children were not personally guilty of the crime. This human guideline for legal justice in no way binds the right or authority of God. No where does the verse indicate that these are guidelines for God, on the contrary, he implicitly states that they are guidelines for human government ( Dt 12:1 Deuteronomy 12:1 "These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth")
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The operative words in this verse are "bear the iniquity" The actual guilt of the sin. However, Moses was not writing about the guilt of the sin, he was writing about the *consequences*. Just as if a baby is born with AIDS because the mother was a IV drug user, the baby is not guilty of using drugs in God's eyes, but it still bears the consequences of it's mothers sin. You need to really study a verse and possibly get a lexicon BEFORE you assume you understand what a verse is saying.
> <<Taking the facts into consideration; Midian had piled up sin on sin on
>sin and had lead God's Midian had piled up sin on sin on sin and had lead
>God's
>chosen people into blasphemous idolatry. The WAGES of SIN is DEATH.>>
>
>Here is your thread of question begging again. How can we really know what
>the facts are in this matter, because we do not have any other record of
this
>event to compare with the Israelite account? In your statement, there is an
>assumption that if the Bible says something, then it must be true beyond
>question. Historians are notoriously biased (take as an example the way
that
>WWII history is presented in Japanese schools today), so we have every
reason
>to suspect that the Hebrew historians were no different. They told their
>versions of events, but how do we know that they really happened this way?
>
I refuse to even consider the argument that questions the Bible. It has stood untainted thru millennia where other books (Shakespeare barely 300 years old, and the writings of Aristotle and Socrates over 2000 years old) are so disputed in their content that no one can say for sure what the accurate translations is! There are over 14,000 separate manuscripts, uncials, that verify the authenticity of the Bible, and they agree (over 98%) on the current translation of the Authorized English Version. This book was written over a period of 1500 years by over 40 human authors, on 3 continents, in 3 languages, by people writing in all kinds of states of mind (happy sad, mad, scared, tormented,) and from all walks of life from King to beggar, from political leader to sheep herders, yet there is not one verified original contradiction or alteration of message on all ranges of controversial subjects from homosexuality to divorce to abortion to capital punishment! You couldn't pay 5 people on the same continent , in the same language, at the same period of time, in the same frame of mind, on the same subject all from the same background (let's say doctors) to write 1 thesis on one controversial subject (let's say abortion) and get the Bibles kind of unity. The reason is because although 40 different hands held the pens, there is only 1 author the spirit of God (II Tim 3:16 ) It is absolutely ludicrous to imagine that the Bible is not correct. Historians may taint the message but we see in the scripture, David writing about his own sins, Moses writing about his sins, Integrity of message because God is the author. There are several examples. The bible is scientifically accurate, historically accurate and Spiritually accurate.
>The Medianites <sic> piled sin on top of sin? How do you know? Even if we
assume
>the biblical record is true, I know of nothing before the orgy at Per that
>would indicate that the Midianites had "piled sin on top of sin," so how do
>you happen to know this? Could you give me your source of information?
Verse 2. They didn't just invent the false gods and sexual worship of them the day Israel moved into town. This was their way of life, worshiping "Baal peor" or "Baal of peor" their god, and in worship to him they had temple prostitutes whose function was to serve as sexual worship vessels to Baal. Read about Canaanite gods and practices of the time period. I think you can probably find them in any library.
> Even
>with the Bible as our source, all we would know (if the account is accurate)
>is that some Medianite <sic> (or Moabite) women frolicked with some
Israelite men
>at a place called Per? Is that grounds for killing all the people that
>Yahweh ordered exterminated?
Though you have not listed the extent of the sin,[ It was not the adultery that was the main issue, it was the sexual worship of Baal peor in idolatrous orgies] I answer Yes.
>Would you condone the killing of adulterers
>today?
No. We are not in the same economy. Christ came to fulfill the Law (which he did) we now live in a time where the Jewish Law is not operative. Though adultery is technically deserving of death in the Old Testament, The Bible tells us to submit to our current Government until such a time as God returns to judge the World.
>Would you condone the killing of the children of adulterers?
Irrelevant. Adulterers are not the issue. Idolatrous, sexually perverted worshipers of a false god was the issue. And some included the use of children (as some do today).
>
><< People like you never cease to amaze me,>>
>
>And as nicely as I know how, I want to say that the feeling is mutual. The
OT
>is a barbarous, bloody history of a savage people who no doubt thought that
>their god was on their side, but so did the people of the nations around
>them. "My god can lick your god" was the mentality of the time, AND PEOPLE
>LIKE YOU STILL BUY THE IDEA THAT ONE OF THOSE TINY TRIBES WAS RIGHT. They
>really did have their god on their side! The Moabites were mistaken in
>thinking that their god Chemosh was on their side; the Babylonians were
>mistaken in thinking that their god Bel was on their side; the Philistines
>were mistaken in thinking that their god Dagon was on their side; and so on
>ad infinitum, but the Israelites of all these nations were right. They
>really did have God on their side. Most of these nations could be crammed
>into a territory that wasn't much bigger than some counties in the U.S. All
>of this was obviously primitive superstition that rational minds can no
>longer accept, but people like you continue to fill young minds like
>Matthew's with the stuff. So I feel the same way about you: I never cease
to
>be amazed that such an idea can still be clung to in these enlightened
times.
>
>
I fail to follow your r@Hn. God clearly demonstrated his presence numerous times in the Old Testament. If you need proof of God's Existence, look up St. Augustine's 5 proofs of God. They are irrefutable. God most definitely exists. Then, the size of the nations really is irrelevant to your conclusion of primitive superstition. And enlightenment, (if you can call evolution, the big bang, and carbon-14 guessing "enlightenment") really has no bearing on the DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACT OF GOD, HIS MIRACLES and the PUNISHMENT OF SIN.
><< and especially you for you claim to have spent 12 years in actual
ministry
>and tout a Bible School education.>>
>
>Well, what can I say? As a child, I was trained to believe this stuff (just
>as Matthew is today), so I entered the ministry before I had really had time
>to study the Bible and learn what was in it. Yes, I went to a Bible college
>(two of them, in fact), but does that mean that I should continue to believe
>what I was taught there when I was able to see that I had really been taught
>error?
>
>But let me ask you something? If I had attended a Mormon college, would you
>"never ceased to be amazed" that there are people like me who could receive
>such training and then renounce Mormonism? Of what if I had received an
>Islamic training and then renounced it, would you "never ceased to be
amazed"
>that there could be people like me around? In other words, here is your
>question-begging thread again. You are trying to assume that the Bible is
>true; therefore, anyone who renounces it is just a terrible person.
>
Mormonism, Yes. There is no historical proof any civilization remotely resembling the one described in the book of Mormon ever existed on this continent, the book is riddled with errors, changes from edition to edition and every SINGLE one of the original founders renounced they had ever witnessed anything used today to attempt to substantiate Mormonism.
Islam, Yes. The Koran teaches Scientific error (that the earth is supported on the backs of elephants and earthquakes are them walking!), it teaches doctrinal error in the nature of God, and has many contradictions in it's text. They teach that God is not begotten nor does he beget which is a denial of John 3:16. Mohammed taught that Ishmael was the chosen son of Abraham when the Bible states clearly that it was Isaac.
The Bible is true until PROVEN false. You cannot prove it is false. Just give it the same consideration you give a common street sign that says "dead end" You don't drive thru the sign and attempt to verify whether or not the road really is a dead end. You trust that it is until proven that it isn't. I maintain that the bible is true...until you prove it false.
><<1 Samuel 15:1-3:
>
>The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly
>depraved!!>>
>
>Please let me see your proof of that.
Let me see your proof they are not! I have studied their practices. Archaeological fact confirms that the Amalekites sacrificed their live children to a God called Molech. (As did other nations) They have always been the enemy of the Jews and at every turn tried to destroy them!
> I'll even accept the Bible as
>evidence, because I know that it teaches no such thing about the Amalekites
>of the generation that Saul was presumably ordered to massacre. I hear this
>all of the time, but I've never had anyone present the proof of utter
>depravity or even corruption beyond the normal for its time. Why do you
guys
>do this?
Corruption is corruption it needs not to be excessive to warrant destruction.
>
>
><< What's more, they actually desired to destroy Israel (vs. 2),
>who were to be the channel of his Redemptive plans via the Christ.
>(Gen.12:1-3 et al.)..
>
>Verse 2 in this passage is an allusion to the Amalekite attack on Israel
>during the trek to the promised land (Exodus 17:8-16), so it is no
>explanation at all for why a benevolent God would have ordered the
>extermination of Saul's generation of Amalekites. You do know, don't you,
>that Saul lived 450 years after the Amalekite attack on Israel mentioned in
>Exodus 17? Perhaps, then, you can explain to us the morality of ordering
the
>extermination of a people (including children and babies, v:3) for something
>their ancestors had done 450 years earlier.
>Furthermore, the Israelites at the time of the exodus had entered Amalekite
>territory with an army of 600,000 (if we are to believe the Bible), so what
>the Amalekites did could be considered a justifiable defense of their
>national territory. Certainly, it would not be an excuse to kill their
>descendants 450 years later.
Ok... this is an entirely different discussion but in a nutshell, the because of the Amalekites ambush of God's people on the way out of Egypt and their constant attempts to destroy the Jews, God swore constant war with all of the Amalekites descendants (Ex 17:16) Subsequently this was still in effect in Sauls time.
>
> << (Side note: This is clearly orchestrated by Satan who has
>always attempted to thwart Gods redemptive plan by destroying
>Israel-[another subject].)>>
>
>
>Here is your question-begging thread again. How do you know that the
>Israelites were God's chosen people whom Yahweh was using to execute a
>redemptive plan? You know it because the Bible teaches it, and so you want
>to assume that it must be true. It is far more likely that the Israelites
>simply thought that they were Yahweh's chosen people, just as the Moabites
>thought that they were Chemosh's chosen people.
>
Irrelevant. The Bible is the ultimate Authority. You say it isn't true yet historically, factually, scientifically, and especially PROPHETICALLY it is. It is far more likely that you are wrong than the Bible being wrong.
>As for Satan's attempt to thwart God's plan, how do you even know any such
>being exists? Well, the Bible tells you so, so please refer to my comments
>above about question begging.
>
Refer to my answers above regarding your unfounded doubts in the truth of the Bible.
><<The Amalekites total destruction was necessitated by the gravity of their
>sin.>>
>
>Same song, second verse. Let's see your proof, and again I will even accept
>the Bible as proof. Where does the Bible teach that the Amalekites of
Saul's
>time were such grave sinners that they had to be exterminated. This is
>simply fundamentalist gibberish that you guys used to defend the
>indefensible. It gets a little tiresome listening to it.
>
Exodus 17:16. Period.
> <<If not destroyed entirely, a remnant would invariably resume their
hateful
>act toward God's people AND plan.>>
>
>God's people? Let's see your proof.
Oh sheesh. You want proof that Israel is God's chosen people????!?!?! Come on! The entire Old Testament refers to "Israel, My Son" "Israel, My people" "When my people shall hear my voice" "Israel is my beloved" On and on and on ... try this: Flip to any random page in the Old Testament and see if somewhere it doesn't talk about Israel's relationship to God. You can also purchase a concordance. I might as well ask you for proof that Americans are free. The entire society is based on that notion just as the entire society of Israel was based on the fact (FACT) that they were God's People.
>Also, if you know anything about the
>Bible, you know that the Amalekites whom Saul utterly destroyed in 1 Samuel
>15 miraculously regenerated themselves in time for David to totally destroy
>them again in 1 Samuel 27:8-9, and then, lo and behold, they regenerated
>themselves enough for David to massacre again totally (except for 400 young
>men who fled on camels) three chapters later. Such is the nonsense that you
>defend as the inerrant "word of God."
The Scripture makes a distinction in I Samuel 27: 8-9. It speaks of older Generations of Geshurites and Amalekites that were not driven from the land (Judg 1:6). This was not the same bunch of course because the others were destroyed, hence the designation "those nations were of old." It then goes on to say that David smote the LAND (not specifically the Amalekites) and destroyed everyone in that area. What am I to believe of you... that you think there was no way that other descendants of Amelek were not living in another nation? Please. This is simple. There are the Amalekites that pursued Israel intently, there are the Amalekites of the old nations (Why else would there be a different designation/explanation?!) and they were not said to be totally destroyed in I Sam 27!
>
><< But the most important: I submit to you that the death of the children
>was an act of Mercy on God's part. The Amalekite children most certainly
>would have followed in their parents sins . . . however through their death,
>before they were accountable for their sin (2 Sam 12:23) God actually
>bestowed upon them eternal life with him which was far better! Even in his
>judgment he bestowed mercy! I am sure not one of them would want it to have
>happened any other way, because they are still enjoying God even now!>>
>
>Ah, so you finally brought it down to this! The logic in this outrageous
>defense of the Amalekite atrocity would make it advisable to send hit squads
>to foreign countries rather than missionaries. The missionaries could then
>kill all of the children and babies before they grew up to become "wicked"
>like their parents.
This is ridiculous. The Amalekites and the Unsaved of Today are in two separate dispensations. They are not even comparable. The people of today do not fall under the curse of Amelek, they do not seek to destroy Israel. I am stunned at your broad leap of time and space to link two completely different situations. Israel was not trying to save the Amalekites, they were to utterly obliterate them. As a side note, I observed that the children were actually better off in death than in life! Now you want to bring the evangelical commission of the Church Age in to the argument and compare and contrast Missions and Salvation in the post-crucifixion New Testament era with War and Retribution in the pre-crucifixion Old Testament era. Why don't we just compare the Jets with Bi-planes or the WWII Soviet Allies of the 40's with the Soviet Enemies of the 60's. Apples with Oranges etc. They are two different things. Logic doesn't apply to an imbalanced contrast. On the contrary... It is completely ILLOGICAL to compare two completely unrelated scenarios!!!
> Please answer some questions about this view:
These questions are irrelevant based on the fact that you apparently cannot make a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, War and Love, Missions of Mercy and Missions of Retribution.
>
>1. If you have children, would you like for God to kill them now so that
>they will go to heaven rather than risking their souls by growing up?
>
>2. If you had been born an Israelite contemporary to Saul but had the same
>knowledge that you have from having been born in our time, would you have
>gladly massacred women, pregnant women, children, and babies in the
Amalekite
>campaign?
>
>3. What is your proof that there is a heaven for massacred babies and
>children to go to?
>
I will answer this though... It is found in II Samuel 12:23.
>I have no illusions, of course, but I do hope that my comments will cause
you
>to think rationally about these matters. Quite frankly, I would be ashamed
>to take some of the positions that you have taken in order to defend your
>barbaric Yahweh.
>
>Farrell Till
>
I also have no illusions, but hope my comments will force your eyes open to the fact that the Bible is completely without error and contradiction. Each supposed argument you have has a rational and logical explanation. And that if you took a moment to dig in to what the Scripture actually said you would see this. You say that you would be ashamed to take the positions you have imagined to occur in the Bible, but I assure you, You have an inaccurate view of God, Christianity and the Bible. This again is because of the construction of the Bible and your lack of spiritual discernment.
I implore you to reexamine your life and your decisions.
For Him;
Richard rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com http://jax.jaxnet.com/~rbriggs "Faith works" - John F. MacArthur, Jr.