Thanks for giving your thoughts on the passage. I'm not sure I'm persuaded, but I think it's better to offer an alternative possibility than to tear down what some may see as the best option without providing an alternative. What do you think about passages where prophets are giving dire warnings to Israel - threats that are perhaps reminiscent in some cases of what Numbers 31 says happens to Midian?
You should always lead with this. It clarifies what otherwise can come across as “putting God in the dock”. I had nearly written you off but really I agree with your understanding of the purpose of having and meditating on Scripture.
If one tries to make a cogent character for God from the different scriptures it fails. God, especially as he appears particularly in the Old Testament, empties the words "Good" or "Love" of any meaning. Jesus brings a new understanding of God as heavenly Father, and that is further developed by the later gospels such as John once christianity incorporates the insights of Platonic philosophy into itself (particularly Plato's concept of the GOOD) it is lifted from the tribal God Yaweh into a more beautiful vision. Unfortunately, in my opinion, many scriptural inerrantists put off many thoughtful people from christianity because they insist that the atrocities in Numbers 31 etc, need to be believed as truth.
What is clear from this discussion is that mental gymnastics is not enough to rationalise certain passages in the bible; you require mental contortions.
I’m about this close to abandoning Christianity after learning that the Bible endorses horrific things like slavery, rape, and children being killed! Im reading your books in hopes of finding something that I can reconcile my faith back around because if not Christianity idk what I would have faith in.. im so mad at God and am utterly at a loss for what to do..
Hey Randal. This bothers me. You offer two possible ways to deal with Numbers 31, at least one of which entails the proposition that the text contains false information. Now, you seem to claim that Paul's statement that all Scripture is "beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness" does not imply that all Scripture teaches true things. I agree with this claim as far as "teaches true things" means "makes literal true statements", since even in the gospels we can find remarks that are literally false. Nevertheless, I do not accept your claim as far as "teaches true things" means "is true in that which it means to teach". In other words, I think 2 Tim 3:16 implies that all Scripture is true in that which it means to teach. Even if this kind of true teaching is not necessary for Scripture to be "beneficial for ...", it is necessary for Scripture to be "God-breathed". God cannot lie, so whatever Scripture means to teach must be true. Now, the question becomes: Does Numbers 31 mean to teach the proposition that God wanted Moses to do something immoral, or is such a proposition merely an element that exists in the text but is not meant to be part of the teaching? I think the former is excluded by my prior remarks on 2 Tim 3:16. Thus, if the proposition in question exists in the text, then we can conclude that it is not something Scripture means to teach. So, we do not have to discard Numbers as you seem to do. However, I think the situation is even better than that: Numbers 31 does not even seem to say that God wanted Moses to do something immoral. The part about killing children and women in v17 is prefaced by v14-15 that say Moses is angry and he gives the command. It is not God commanding any immorality, but Moses. Perhaps I have missed something, but this seems to make the whole discussion moot. We don't need to insult the Torah like you apparently do. What do you think?
@@quantumcomputist8572 Nah, Numbers 31 is about the Ugandan genocide level of evil, the killing of Ananias of Sapphira is more like a Russian mafia murder level of evil.
@@kamilgregor except that they weren't killed because they refused to give away their money but because they lied in order to brag about being generous even though they weren't. I don't know what to make of this story but as a socialist, I think that our world would be much better off if all very rich people who brag about fighting global warming even though they actually worsen it through their actions and inaction would suffer from the same fate. I do realise this sounds terrible to the bourgeois anti-theists who read that.
Exactly. Even the act of killing sentient animals (including humans) as an offering to a God was itself disgusting, any pretense that the Bible is a *source* of moral guidance was shattered.
@@benbockelman6125 - why would you believe such an extraordinary claim when you don’t believe the mundane claim that God told people to do something you find objectionable?
The fact that the law allowed for kidnap and rape doesn’t mean that they weren’t kidnapped and raped. It just means that it wasn’t illegal under their law…
@@alexwilli Assimilation was practiced in just about every ancient culture. However, unique to the Israelites, there were rules on how these people were to be treated as recorded in the Bible. They weren’t to be abused and were to be treated as one treats any other Israelite.
Your definition of inarrancy seem so permissive to be meaningless. If I wanted to include drunkt scripling on bathroom walls and Mein Kampf as gods innerant scripture I could do that while still rejecting their contents by interpreting them using the very same methods you use to interpreet objectionable biblical passages.
Here are the passages where YAHWEH commands that little babies must be chopped up with swords - which were the weapons used by the ancient Israelites when they went to war. Numbers 31 v 17 1 Samuel 15 v 2 Joshua 6 v 21 Joshua 10 v 28, 30 Deutoronomy 2 v 34 Evangelicals always claim that the YAHWEH commanded that the babies must be chopped up with swords as a punishment for their parents committing sins. Their parents were from surrounding nations that were NOT followers of YAHWEH. One of the claims is that the babies would have been sacrificed on satanic altars by their parents. So chopping the little babies up with swords was actually irrelevant as the little babies went straight to heaven anyway. Remember that Jesus is YAHWEH according to the Evangelicals. So it was actually Jesus who commanded that the little babies must be chopped up with swords. Well Jesus must be schizophrenic because in the New Testament he says suffer the little babies to come unto me. YAHWEH and his alter ego Jesus is definitely a schizophrenic war God.
You *could* go the Gnostic route...the egotistical violent and racist god of the Jews was Yaldabaoth...Jesus comes from "The Father," who should be understood to be the true God, the Creator, from which only "good' and "light" is produced. The god (not "The Father") of the Jews was the evil sub-creator god, and Jesus came from "The Father" and he made "The Father" known to us, contrary to the Jewish god Yaldabaoth...
The term is "Gnostic," not "Gnotsic". And no, that's not what I said. Please don't make stuff up or I'll just block you. There's enough disinformation already.
@@Randal_Rauser That was a typo on my end...I'm not saying you're saying that...I'm saying that one could (not you specifically) take the Gnostic route in dealing with the problematic OT passages. My apologies for the confusion.
I think your argument that what happened in Numbers 31 is something that was debunked in Biblical scholarship also applies to the NT. Have you seen how secular NT scholars have said that the Gospels are not reliable? Even the former Calvinist apologist Tyler Vela has said on myth vision that Christians try way too hard to reconcile all the contradictory reports of the Gospels. Since you rely on Jesus to argue out your point in relation to the OT, what does one do when even the NT is not reliable?
Thanks for giving your thoughts on the passage. I'm not sure I'm persuaded, but I think it's better to offer an alternative possibility than to tear down what some may see as the best option without providing an alternative.
What do you think about passages where prophets are giving dire warnings to Israel - threats that are perhaps reminiscent in some cases of what Numbers 31 says happens to Midian?
You should always lead with this. It clarifies what otherwise can come across as “putting God in the dock”. I had nearly written you off but really I agree with your understanding of the purpose of having and meditating on Scripture.
If one tries to make a cogent character for God from the different scriptures it fails. God, especially as he appears particularly in the Old Testament, empties the words "Good" or "Love" of any meaning. Jesus brings a new understanding of God as heavenly Father, and that is further developed by the later gospels such as John once christianity incorporates the insights of Platonic philosophy into itself (particularly Plato's concept of the GOOD) it is lifted from the tribal God Yaweh into a more beautiful vision. Unfortunately, in my opinion, many scriptural inerrantists put off many thoughtful people from christianity because they insist that the atrocities in Numbers 31 etc, need to be believed as truth.
But the idea of hell might be the most heinous thing throughout both the OT and NT.
What is clear from this discussion is that mental gymnastics is not enough to rationalise certain passages in the bible; you require mental contortions.
Are you going to engage with what he says is the purpose of reading and meditating on Scripture?
I’m about this close to abandoning Christianity after learning that the Bible endorses horrific things like slavery, rape, and children being killed! Im reading your books in hopes of finding something that I can reconcile my faith back around because if not Christianity idk what I would have faith in.. im so mad at God and am utterly at a loss for what to do..
Read my book "Jesus Loves Canaanites," in particular. The Bible doesn't endorse moral horrors.
Check out Brad Jersak as well, he's been helpful for me with sorting through some of the more difficult parts of scripture and Christian theology.
Hey Randal. This bothers me. You offer two possible ways to deal with Numbers 31, at least one of which entails the proposition that the text contains false information. Now, you seem to claim that Paul's statement that all Scripture is "beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness" does not imply that all Scripture teaches true things. I agree with this claim as far as "teaches true things" means "makes literal true statements", since even in the gospels we can find remarks that are literally false. Nevertheless, I do not accept your claim as far as "teaches true things" means "is true in that which it means to teach". In other words, I think 2 Tim 3:16 implies that all Scripture is true in that which it means to teach. Even if this kind of true teaching is not necessary for Scripture to be "beneficial for ...", it is necessary for Scripture to be "God-breathed". God cannot lie, so whatever Scripture means to teach must be true.
Now, the question becomes: Does Numbers 31 mean to teach the proposition that God wanted Moses to do something immoral, or is such a proposition merely an element that exists in the text but is not meant to be part of the teaching? I think the former is excluded by my prior remarks on 2 Tim 3:16. Thus, if the proposition in question exists in the text, then we can conclude that it is not something Scripture means to teach. So, we do not have to discard Numbers as you seem to do. However, I think the situation is even better than that: Numbers 31 does not even seem to say that God wanted Moses to do something immoral. The part about killing children and women in v17 is prefaced by v14-15 that say Moses is angry and he gives the command. It is not God commanding any immorality, but Moses. Perhaps I have missed something, but this seems to make the whole discussion moot. We don't need to insult the Torah like you apparently do. What do you think?
bro its just not true cmon now open your eyes and drop the circular arguments . this is cope not scholarship
What's your take on the story of Ananias and Sapphira?
Wait, is that as bad as Numbers 31?
@@quantumcomputist8572 Nah, Numbers 31 is about the Ugandan genocide level of evil, the killing of Ananias of Sapphira is more like a Russian mafia murder level of evil.
@@kamilgregor except that they weren't killed because they refused to give away their money but because they lied in order to brag about being generous even though they weren't. I don't know what to make of this story but as a socialist, I think that our world would be much better off if all very rich people who brag about fighting global warming even though they actually worsen it through their actions and inaction would suffer from the same fate.
I do realise this sounds terrible to the bourgeois anti-theists who read that.
I do wonder, at what point do you simply give up on the bible since there are so many bad ideas in it?
Exactly. Even the act of killing sentient animals (including humans) as an offering to a God was itself disgusting, any pretense that the Bible is a *source* of moral guidance was shattered.
I think you give up the Bible when you no longer believe Jesus is the son of God.
@@benbockelman6125 - why would you believe such an extraordinary claim when you don’t believe the mundane claim that God told people to do something you find objectionable?
@@benbockelman6125 could be sooner!
@@alexwilli also a good reason to give up on the bible!
They weren’t kidnapped or raped.
The Law allows taking a wife from among war captives.
Deut 21:10-14
The fact that the law allowed for kidnap and rape doesn’t mean that they weren’t kidnapped and raped. It just means that it wasn’t illegal under their law…
that is legal kidnaping and rape! yay!.... wait.
A bit like Islamic State kidnapping Yazidi girls to keep as wives and sex slaves. No different.
@@alexwilli
Assimilation was practiced in just about every ancient culture.
However, unique to the Israelites, there were rules on how these people were to be treated as recorded in the Bible.
They weren’t to be abused and were to be treated as one treats any other Israelite.
@@joseph_miller Indeed. I think a lot of people read through this through the eyes of presentivism and that's a big issue nowadays.
Your definition of inarrancy seem so permissive to be meaningless. If I wanted to include drunkt scripling on bathroom walls and Mein Kampf as gods innerant scripture I could do that while still rejecting their contents by interpreting them using the very same methods you use to interpreet objectionable biblical passages.
Exactly. The idea of inarrancy just doesn't make sense.
Here are the passages where YAHWEH commands that little babies must be chopped up with swords - which were the weapons used by the ancient Israelites when they went to war.
Numbers 31 v 17
1 Samuel 15 v 2
Joshua 6 v 21
Joshua 10 v 28, 30
Deutoronomy 2 v 34
Evangelicals always claim that the YAHWEH commanded that the babies must be chopped up with swords as a punishment for their parents committing sins.
Their parents were from surrounding nations that were NOT followers of YAHWEH.
One of the claims is that the babies would have been sacrificed on satanic altars by their parents.
So chopping the little babies up with swords was actually irrelevant as the little babies went straight to heaven anyway.
Remember that Jesus is YAHWEH according to the Evangelicals.
So it was actually Jesus who commanded that the little babies must be chopped up with swords.
Well Jesus must be schizophrenic because in the New Testament he says suffer the little babies to come unto me.
YAHWEH and his alter ego Jesus is definitely a schizophrenic war God.
You *could* go the Gnostic route...the egotistical violent and racist god of the Jews was Yaldabaoth...Jesus comes from "The Father," who should be understood to be the true God, the Creator, from which only "good' and "light" is produced.
The god (not "The Father") of the Jews was the evil sub-creator god, and Jesus came from "The Father" and he made "The Father" known to us, contrary to the Jewish god Yaldabaoth...
The term is "Gnostic," not "Gnotsic". And no, that's not what I said. Please don't make stuff up or I'll just block you. There's enough disinformation already.
The God of the "jews" no the God of the isrealistes
@@Randal_Rauser That was a typo on my end...I'm not saying you're saying that...I'm saying that one could (not you specifically) take the Gnostic route in dealing with the problematic OT passages. My apologies for the confusion.
I think your argument that what happened in Numbers 31 is something that was debunked in Biblical scholarship also applies to the NT. Have you seen how secular NT scholars have said that the Gospels are not reliable? Even the former Calvinist apologist Tyler Vela has said on myth vision that Christians try way too hard to reconcile all the contradictory reports of the Gospels. Since you rely on Jesus to argue out your point in relation to the OT, what does one do when even the NT is not reliable?