Cruelty in the OT

[terminatordrei]

Hello everyone,

How would you respond to people who point out to atrocities in the OT such as the ones in this website?

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/biblequotes.htm

[August]

Ask them by what moral standard they judge these to be atrocities.

[terminatordrei]

I have an idea of where you're getting at, but it won't work. They are not the usual moral relativists but think morality is both godless and objective.

[August]

So have them explain their logical argument for godless objective morality. I'd be happy to have a look at it.

[Jac3510]

John Frame has a book entitled Apologetics to the Glory of God. It's a bit technical, but I highly recommend it, as it handles this issue in depth. He puts forward what he calls the transcendental moral argument. Unlike the standard argument from morality as put forward by Lewis, Frame does not ask "Where does morality come from (answer, God)?" but rather asks, "What is the authority behind that morality?" Even if we all accept morality as both godless and objective, it still must be observed that a moral code has no inherent authority. In fact, by even applying the moral argument to you, they are condemning themselves, because they expect you recognize some basic facts and therefore concede. In other words, you ought to concede if they are right. It would be "wrong" of you not to.

Anyway, the man spends probably three hundred pages walking through how it all works. When I first read it, I wasn't impressed, but when I really understood it and starting actually using it, I found it to be a great tool.

As for the examples of cruelty, I'll actually look over a few of them myself later, because I don't believe God ever did anything "cruel" and thus evil.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

I saw some of Israel's laws being regurgitated, and while you or that site may disagree with them from a 21st century Western cultural perspective as being harsh or cruel, Israel was special in that it had a covenant with God to remain separate and distinct from other nations around them as God's holy people.

As for conquering of nations, the nations were given every opportunity to turn from their sin. Infact a reason God gave to Abraham on why he could not inherit or take the land earlier than Moses is because the sin of the nations had not reached their limit. Further, these were hostile and not friendly nations they were dealing with. Infact quite remarkable, especially at such a time, is the fact the Israel was to offer the people of a city peace first. So the only ones they conquered or destroyed were those which showed hostility towards them. Furthermore, sparing the women and children (although not always the case) was also an act of compassion since they would be integrated into the society of Israel and hence looked after.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

As for the taking of "slaves", they were in some ways more like employees. In addition some slaves could purchase their freedom back, or had to be released during the Year of Jubilee. Slavery also meant the poor could take refuge under someone who would be responsible for them, unlike our western "civilised" nations which cast the poor out onto the streets to fend for themselves then shun them. Therefore, I put forward that "slavery" was/is not entirely bad, although it can become thoroughly immoral when abused as was the case with the African slave trade.

There is an page I recommend on this issue of slavery which can be found at http://www.scripturessay.com/q394b.html.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

As for the apparent "errors":

1) Rabbits don't chew cud.
Response: "The word cud does not require regurgitation as some claim. Chewing the cud simply means to hold something in the mouth to chew it. We associate the word 'cud' with grazing cows because they first eat the grass, regurgitate it and then pass it to another stomach. Rabbits chew vegetation but do not regurgitate it. Both are cud chewers but the rabbit does it in one step. The most common usage today is regurgitating grass and chewing the cud, however the definition is not limited to our common usage. The Israelites understood exactly what was being said." (http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/rabbitCud.shtml)

2) No insects (including grasshoppers) are 4-legged. Leviticus 11:20-22 appears to say otherwise.
Response: "... when you study the anatomy of a grasshopper, you will find that he has 4 small legs growing from the bottom of his thorax. These are used for walking, thus he goes on all four. Then, notice that the writer expressly states "which (referring to the type insect) have legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth". This is in reference to his large hindermost legs that he uses for leaping. Many will argue that he uses them also for walking. Not true, they may move and appear to be helping him walk, but what would you have him do with them? Drag them? We swing our arms as we walk to help us maintain our balance and momentum, but that does not mean that we walk with them. The term "above" does not mean "growing from their feet to their body". Above is used to express such meanings as "in addition to", "more", "greater" and things of this nature and is so used here ie, (1 Cor. 10:13"...who will not suffer you to be tempted above [more] that ye are able:") (John 6:13, "...which remained over and above [in addition to] unto them that had eaten.""

3) Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain is only possible on a flat earth (Matthew 4:8—Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;)
Response: This one amused me. Jesus need not just see the kingdoms, but also needed to see all their glory. How is this really possible from afar? I've always taken such a viewing as visionary, and unless such can be ruled out 100% then this poses no problem. A flat earth is certainly not being advocated in this passage. If further interested, a page I found relating to this criticism can be read at http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q105.htm

4) pi does not = 3. (1 Kings 7:23)
Response: It does not equal 3.14 either which I used in my maths class as a student. 3.14 is a rounded of figure to that of 3.14159, yet this does not mean I was wrong when using the rounded figure, or if I stated pi equals 3.14 if asked. It just means I rounded it off. Now it would appear that the biblical record of various measurements of various parts of the temple are not necessarily design to provide precise scientific or mathematical calculations, but rather reasonable approximations. The rounding of numbers and values no doubt was common practice in ancient times where exact scientific calculations were not used.

5) The earth moves. It does not have a foundation. (Psalms 104:5—He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.)
Response: Not taking away from the fact this chapter is poetic, the literal word for "foundation" has the Strong's definition: "properly a fixture, that is, a basis; generally a place, especially as an abode: - foundation, habitation, (dwelling-, settled) place." Thus, "foundation" need not necessarily mean something comparable to the foundation of a house, but that it was simply put into its place (which we know today works by gravitational forces and what-have-you). As for Earth not moving, the KJV makes better sense of the last portion of verse 5: "that it should not be removed." I see nothing inconsistent with this since Earth hasn't been removed from its place.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It is fun giving my brain a few exercises now and then, and nothing is better than showing the validity of Scripture. If anyone else is keen they can respond to the apparent "contradictions."

Kurieuo

[Mathetes]

John Frame has a book entitled Apologetics to the Glory of God. It's a bit technical, but I highly recommend it, as it handles this issue in depth. He puts forward what he calls the transcendental moral argument. Unlike the standard argument from morality as put forward by Lewis, Frame does not ask "Where does morality come from (answer, God)?" but rather asks, "What is the authority behind that morality?" Even if we all accept morality as both godless and objective, it still must be observed that a moral code has no inherent authority. In fact, by even applying the moral argument to you, they are condemning themselves, because they expect you recognize some basic facts and therefore concede. In other words, you ought to concede if they are right. It would be "wrong" of you not to.

Anyway, the man spends probably three hundred pages walking through how it all works. When I first read it, I wasn't impressed, but when I really understood it and starting actually using it, I found it to be a great tool.

As for the examples of cruelty, I'll actually look over a few of them myself later, because I don't believe God ever did anything "cruel" and thus evil.

God bless

Greg Bahnsen does that too. He'll often ask atheists what basis they're using for their morality. His point is generally that their standards of morality are either arbitrary or "borrow" from the Judeo-Christian worldview.

[Jac3510]

Bahsen? I've not heard of him . . . he's going on my reading list. I'm actually going to be placing a pretty good book book order here in the next few weeks.

Gracias

The more I study, the more and more I am thoroughly convinced of three things:

1) Christianity is absolutely correct,
2) It takes an idiot (used in the proper sense of the term) do not believe once his ignorance has been excused, and
3) My mother makes the best lasagna. Bar none.

God bless

[Mathetes]

Bahsen? I've not heard of him . . . he's going on my reading list. I'm actually going to be placing a pretty good book book order here in the next few weeks.

You're missing out on some first-class apologetics:

http://www.cmfnow.com/

Check out his articles if you want to get an idea of his approach. The MP3s are great, too.

[terminatordrei]

My question wasn't in any way mean-spirited. I apologize if I gave you that impression.

I realise that the "contradictions" Kurieuo mentioned are not that, but misinterpreted passages. However, I was referring to a common critique I've heard that the Tanakh is full of atrocities like God giving permission to the Hebrews to kill many tribes like the Canaanites, to take their land. Also the stoning of children, people being punished by having to eat feces, the harsh punishments in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and so forth.

I've read many of these passages and quite frankly the only solution I've found is to dismiss them. I guess this is because I don't know much about the historical conditions in which the texts were written, and I have a gut feeling that they are viewed as atrocities because they're taken out of context. Problem is, I don't know what that context is

[Kurieuo]

There are multiple cases of "cruelty" and/or "harshness" within the Old Testiment which many non-Christians love to throw at Christians or those defending God as presented in Scripture. Often such people aren't looking for answers to them, but love to simply assert that these bad things associated with God exist, often with some unclear murmerings as to what they are, and they are usually presented as fact to try overwhelm their opponent(s).

There are however good responses to each case which one can find on many apologetic websites across the Web. It is a matter of getting the person making the attack to get specific, and then tackling the scenarios presented one-by-one to understand the full context of what is being dealt with. Often the responses require a great deal more work since it requires much more knowledge, than the questions raised by the person content to criticise Christianity and too lazy to evenly look for their own answers.

For example, the Midianites are often presented as one such case, paritcularly Numbers 31:17-18. Yet, the Midianites were the first to turn on Israel, and the article Good question…What about God's cruelty against the Midianites? reveals just how involved a thorough and good response can get. I would recommend reading this article if it also presents an issue for you, as knowing an answer exists for one case helps one to be confident answers also exist for the other cases (and I've found answers do exist for cases often presented) often touted by the non-Christian.

Kurieuo

[Mathetes]

You can also check here for some quick explanations

[Carico]

Hello everyone,

How would you respond to people who point out to atrocities in the OT such as the ones in this website?

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/biblequotes.htm

I respond by asking them how they are qualified to judge who's innocent? Since we are all guilty, then we are not in a position to judge who is good and who is not. Only God is.