Toto

Hector Avalos has an article at Bible and Interpretation:

The New Holocaust Denialists: The Need for a Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship

hjalti

Avalos is fantastic, especially when he's doing "Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship" (now I finally know what to call this type of scholarship I've been interested in! )

What I find fascinating is that I see this type of holocaust denialism among "liberal" priests/churches. They don't want to condemn the bible, but rescue it.

aeebee50

Tiglath-Pileser III was more fantastic. I prefer relocation better than genocide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III He was a king's king.

sotto voce

What an interesting topic. Mythicists say that there was then no Israel, so they cannot whinge about genocide. Historicists can, of course. But when they crack their heads against a bit of scholarship, they may see how wise is the mythicist path.

Now the Bible is as clear as can be. Canaanites, Amalekites and others, being unacceptable because of their wanton behaviour, were exterminated, and Israelites who could not see the necessity of that action were disapprobated. There is no allegorical significance, here. The text is plainly intended as chronology. The reader is intended to believe that these were actual events. Whether or not they actually happened is somewhat immaterial. It is what, in the Bible deity's view, is going to happen that matters. The moral of these events, real or not, is that, what a creator can create, he can uncreate. And a quick sword to the belly is nothing to 'the fire that cannot be put out'; which is what awaits those who refuse the offer of atonement that forms the background to the whole narrative from Abram onwards. In other words, "You think that's bad? Toughen up, dweeb. You ain't seen nuthin' yet." There is the unvarnished Bible message. You can see it in Genesis, you can see it in Revelation, and at all stops along the route. There is blood with Abel's sacrifice, and that blood indicates that there is no messing about here, and from here on out. Nothing is more serious, nothing can be.

The massive problem that people have is that they either do not realise that what a creator can create, he can uncreate. Or, they realise it, but lie maliciously, realising that they are the very sort of people who thoroughly deserve to be uncreated. The first problem is tractable. One can only treat the second as inappropriate in a forum.

Net2004

christians claim that they are not in the old covenant so what ever behaviour they have, the old cov will not be applied unto thier skins. yhwh did not REVEAL any thing to the canaanites and amalekites, not one messenger from yhwh was SENT to these people . the israelites shook hands with yhwh to do the old cov, not the canaanites and amalekites. yhwh is israeli worshipper and worshipper of land.
the ot says the canaanites + amalekites did not have "wanton behaviour" in the days of abraham, but land obessed yhwh did not SEND them any messengers even @ this time.


read the ot. the only reason yhwh wants to take out non-jews is because

1. jews would leave him for pagan gods
2.revenge for what the forefathers of the amalekites did to the israelites on there way out from egypt.

Jaybees

I wouldn't be so tough on the Israelites of the OT. After all, they weren't doing anything to their neighbors that wouldn't have been done to them.

The sad part is that, today when we should know better, we pattern so much of our behavior on these ignorant creatures slaughtering back and forth over that ancient land.

Sad!

manwithdream

Exodus 23:27-32 says that G-d was driving them out of the land and not that the main goal was to kill them all off.

Kenneth Greifer

manwithdream

The Israelites had to kill the Canaanites for idol worship, but the Israelites would also be killed for that. Deut. 13:13-19 says they were supposed to destroy their own towns if they turned to idols.

Kenneth Greifer

James Brown

I don't know. Verse 23 of the same chapter says God is going to 'wipe them out.' Seems like a clear interpretation.

James Brown

Why?

Why?

Why?