Had they chance ... ?

[1over137]

@ 1over137
just to help answer your original question since mister maggy likes to throw monkey wrenches into people's topics i'll answer the best i can and can provide some scripture if needed. when reading the book of joshua we see that when the spies were sent to jericho they lodged at rahab's house and she hid them from the people of jericho. in her conversation with the israelites she mentions that the people have heard how God had delivered the israelites from the egyptians and that the whole land was terrified of them Joshua 2: 8-13. what i have gathered from my studies is that God had the israelites wander 40 years in the wilderness not just because of the rebellious israelites but for other reasons as well and i'll explain. we all know the expression hitting two birds with one stone well i like to apply that with how God works but instead of hitting two he hits millions lol but here i'll get to the point what i have come to see is not only did God have the israelites wander 40 years cuz of their rebellious nature but also to teach them how to endure hardship and trust in him. do you really think they were ready to obtain their promised land? i think not and for obvious reasons we are shown that. God had to tutor them, guide them and lead them through moses. now God could have taken them straight through to their land but instead they went in kind of a circle and what does this have to do with the people of cannan? well it's simple once you give it some thought. rahab explained that the whole land heard of the israelites and what they came for so i also think God gave them a chance to repent of their ways. why would God do that when he said previously to kill them all you may ask? well simple again God is merciful and loving and will go to great lengths to save the righteous. isn't that what he did to rahab? wasn't her household saved due to her bravery and her willingness to go with God's plan? not only was she spared but also the Gibeonites too, although they came deceivingly they repented of their ways and did not follow with the rest of their amorite neighbors in attacking Israel. Joshua 9: 27. So i strongly believe and feel that God gave them time to turn from their ways and it is not like they had no idea who the Israelites were because from Rahabs conversation she and the land had known of the miracles in which God had done for Israel but not just that but also why and for what reason Israel was coming. instead of following God's plan most opposed and like any that oppose God it is only a matter of time before your walls come crashing down on you like jerichos. hope that helped any

Thank you. I will show this to my friend. Also you answered what he once asked me: that why it took 40 years to come to the promised land.

One more thing. My friend told me that Israelites were number one in killing villages and people, meaning that they did that most often. How is it?

[Icthus]

Icthus, thanks for your post. I am learning from it.

I'm always glad to be of use.

[1over137]

Icthus, thanks for your post. I am learning from it.

I'm always glad to be of use.

My I translate your post into Slovak? I'd like to put it on my homepage.

[Icthus]

Icthus, thanks for your post. I am learning from it.

I'm always glad to be of use.

My I translate your post into Slovak? I'd like to put it on my homepage.

I'd advise against it. I'm a rather timid person, and I'd prefer not to be quoted. More importantly, I'm certainly not an authority on the subject, and I wasn't able to go into as much detail as I would have liked. Since I am currently quite distant from a good academic library and don't have easy access to a good scholarly database, I wasn't able to refer directly to any authoritative sources on the ANE (I was only able to summarize a good part of what I've read), nor was I able to provide exact quotes from the corresponding Biblical passages (I have a bad habit of reading far too much about the Bible and far too little of the Bible itself). Though I'm fairly certain my memory has served me well enough to accurately report what I've read, I wouldn't suggest quoting me on anything, especially when there are so many good authorities out there with the same opinions and whose words actually carry a lot of weight.

Aside from that, I don't think I've said anything that hasn't been said better and with more evidence by others. Paul Copan comes to mind, and Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank has written a much more detailed essay on slavery in the OT with a rather long bibliography at http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html. If you are interested in translating some good material into Slovak and don't mind a lengthy process (very lengthy actually), Miller is still active and answers e-mails if you'd like to ask for permission to reproduce some of his material. That is, if you are specifically looking for material on the subject to translate.

I wish I was multilingual like you.

[Zionist]

@1over137
well that is a pretty absurd and opinionated statement from your friend. there is actually no proof that Israel was number 1 in killing villages. there were many tribes and groups of people that killed, pillaged and destroyed whole towns and cities (vikings come to mind). the Israelites only destroyed what was necessary to destroy. if the groups of people that the Israelites did kill would have turned from their ways and came to believe in the one true God they would have been spared but they didn't and in fact most of them wanted to destroy Israel and sought only to wipe them out. this is also evident when reading the bible you'll see that Israel was constantly invaded by their enemies over and over again. not just that but also look at the nation of Israel today. you know how many of their surrounding nations want them eradicated and just utterly hate them? so i would definitely say that you're friend has a lot of misconceptions about the bible that he really needs to sit down honestly and carefully examine it.

[1over137]

My friend continues searching harsch verses in the Bible. This time he found this:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Can we discuss the verses?

[neo-x]

Hana, this type of reasoning is of no good use. even if you manage to defend these verses, the reason he doesn't believe God is not because of these issues but of unbelief. I would suggest you keep challenging his worldview as well. So that he can see there can be problems in any ideology.

[1over137]

Hana, this type of reasoning is of no good use. even if you manage to defend these verses, the reason he doesn't believe God is not because of these issues but of unbelief. I would suggest you keep challenging his worldview as well. So that he can see there can be problems in any ideology.

I need to defend those verses, really.
Concerning challenging his worldview, he does not have problem to stay in the state of not knowing, not knowing how the universe began and so on. So, he is like, "I do not know but Christianity cannot be right."

[neo-x]

Its really kind of unfair to Christians to defend their worldview but the atheist is not obligated to defend his?

[1over137]

Its really kind of unfair to Christians to defend their worldview but the atheist is not obligated to defend his?

His worldview is I-do-not-know worldview. He occupies himself with things which are knowable currently. I claim the Christianity to be true so it's up to me ro defend that.

[neo-x]

I am not saying you do not defend your view, simply that he is questioning Christianity based on Judaism laws God gave to Israel and not to Christians.

[neo-x]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

what is his objection to be specific to this?

[1over137]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

what is his objection to be specific to this?

That you can beat slaves, just you must be careful not to kill them.

[Icthus]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

what is his objection to be specific to this?

That you can beat slaves, just you must be careful not to kill them.

You might point out that in the ANE, hitting someone with a rod was one of the most common forms of punishment, even for free people. In addition, if a master caused serious injury (even if it was as comparably minor as dislodging a tooth), he was required to give compensation or free the servant.

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth." (Ex 21.26-27).

[1over137]

My friend sees inconsistency in verses
21: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
and
26: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye."

He sees loosing the slave as vengeance.