Jump to content


Photo

Was there a genocide of the Canaanites?


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#41 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 08:22 AM

I no longer believe there were 10 literal plagues either, or if there was it is almost irrelevant to the fact the plagues were real but they were transferring 100% of the meaning to what they spiritually represent (they represent the 10 laws), which we need to understand is just as real as plagues of literal frogs etc, but actually far more real/important to us. So God killing the first born of Egypt is what happens to all of us when we turn to Him and he slays our first born nature (the natural man) so He can set the Israelite in us free. The stubborn Pharaoh is us. All these stories are intended to be internalised in this way. Have you read my thread on Exodus? - My link

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 08:34 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#42 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:09 AM

Well, it's a tough question, isn't it? But the OT is full of the same question -- just phrased in different ways: Why was the whole world so bad that God destroyed them all, young and old alike, but saved only eight in the days of Noah? (And, of course, it can be pointed out that in the NT Jesus gives explicit support to the account. If we believe in Jesus, we can't help but believe that the story of Noah is literally true.)


I have a problem with his use of the words "literally true", as what is literally true means one thing to God and another to man whose perspective is purely natural and thefore frames his language in this way of what is "literally true". It is literally true we must be born again, only whoever wrote the above has a different meaning of the words "literally true", or rather those words carry different meaning to what I would say was literally true, or I believe God/Jesus/the Bible refers to what we should think is literally true. It depends how you train your mind to think, spiritually or naturally. Almost all our false arguments and debates, I believe, are based on fundamentally incorrect assumptions to start with. Christadelphians should know that more than most as it is how they orginally approached traditional assumptions which led to conventional theological views.

What problems might this have presented for Israel if there were pockets of these people, and their worship, everywhere in Israel? We know that some remained, and were "thorns" in the sides of Israel ever after.


From what I can gather their society was appalling and any society that does what they did deserves to be extinct. It may or may not have happened only that I do not NEED it to have happened in the sense of the letter to edify my faith, as I recognise most of the importance in these stories are when the spiritual lessons are derived from them and then applied to myself. The fact these stories seem to contain deep spiritual meaning is far more edifying to me that the bible is actually what it is (a profound spiritual book beyond the wit of man) than any 'literal' sense of the letter in relation to specific history, because literally true or not it is a recognised type and the type is real enough.

On one level, the answer is: the Canaanites (so far as we know about them) were grossly idolatrous people; their systems of worship involved the worst forms of sexual abominations


I get the sense from studying these OT stories that the wrath of God is usually us destroying ourselves, "oh Israel you have destroyed yourself", so likewise if we have those desires as quoted above in our minds, we do the same, spiritually speaking which in the end is just as literal or more so.

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 10:00 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#43 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:41 AM

On another level, there is this answer to the question: God doesn't OWE anyone anything. Life, even brief life, is a gift from God, and He is free to take it back when and how He pleases. He cannot be unjust. The only problem is: we have trouble understanding WHY.



If God explained it clearly and specifically in the Bible then it would destroy our free will and moral autonomy. As for a start, 3000 years ago He would have had to have told us that He has intentionally made it look possible that natural creation was the result of chance in which no God was required. Because anything other than that would by extension prove a Creator God and mankind would lose his free will and moral autonomy. What do I mean by that? I mean that mankind knowing their is no place left to deny God, would therefore transfer all moral responsibility for humpty dumpty falling of the wall to God, rather than the passer by catching him when he falls. We become slaves, that is to say we know a judgemental God will judge our life with no room for doubt *(and this is the real reason most athiests are athiests not agnostics) as they are sinners, they like the idea of it all ending with no judgement/come back, they tell me this is comforting to them. A judgement at the end of their life terrifys them. The truth is, most Christians do not want absolute proof either, if they prayed to God and an angel stood before them in reply most would not secretly welcome it, they would think God had gone just a bit too far, because they are comfortable only with the probable truth that their study of the Bible gives them, any literal visitation by God they would find a bit too much, thats the unspoken truth. This is because many who sin and know they sin relish that little bit of doubt that is their refuge when they intentionally sin. If only for that moment they are sinning.

Also, without the duality of emotions (from sadness to joy) there can be no experience, no love, because their has to be a contrast to experience. And if God observably intervenes to save one child from suffering (thereby destroying humankinds moral autonomy and free will), then He would surely be morally obliged to intervene to save them all?

So there are, I believe, adequate explanations, but we have to work them out ourselves, because if God has clearly spelt them out they would in themselves destroyed moral autonomy and free will. There has to be a contrast of experience to know what love and joy is, which is why a literal suffering and persecution is probably a good thing, or rather necessary.

But that's our problem, not His. It's like Job... he keeps asking WHY. Why am I suffering? Why aren't THEY suffering? Why won't God explain it all to MY satisfaction? Why won't God at least come and talk to me?


God will be speaking to you through other people and when emptying your mind of pressupositions when studying the Bible.

It is all about love, if the love in the world grows cold and is smothered by all the violence and evil and suffering then God should end the world. That is what we are taught from Genesis 6 (the magnitude of why God says He potentially regrets this experiment must fully dawn on us), in relation to what I have said above as it seems to confirm it.

The moment pain and suffering outweighs love then thats the time we should all be put out of our misery, or agree this experiment must end. All we are is a brief flash in time, a birthing ground for potential angels, but from our free will not by the compulsion of scientific evidence, personal evidence can be found by obeying the Bible (Luke 11:13) and (prayerful) study.

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 10:04 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#44 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:48 AM

Nothing really surprise me anymore - I think one of the problems is Fortigurn says one thing, yet says he believes another - so there is little point in discussing the issues.


That is categorically untrue.

This is a post from E-D, 2002, by George Booker (and he gave me permission sometime ago that I could use his "gems" though didn't use that word when and if ever I thought appropriate).


It's a great post but irrelevant here, because no one is disputing God's right to punish the Canaanites in the way that He did, or whether or not they 'deserved' it.

#45 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 10:18 AM

It's a great post but irrelevant here, because no one is disputing God's right to punish the Canaanites in the way that He did, or whether or not they 'deserved' it.


Kay (quoting Fortigurn), I think atheists just focus on the idea of genocide here and that is where their thought process ends, but if they thought the adults of that culture were about to murder their next generation of children and pickle them in jars to appease some abominable image of themselves they call god, would they still insist that immediate death sentance of the perpatrators and their supporters was unjust? What is the point of God creating humankind so we may do abominable things? It goes without saying that should any have deserved to be saved God would have saved them. And only God can make such a judgement as only God can see the full picture.

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 10:21 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#46 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 11:35 AM

Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

It is the idols and images we set up in our mind/land that God primarily wants us to understand we must destroy.
"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#47 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 11:43 AM

God was sure with His promise of the land - but were Israel ?

For me, when I read that I think of whether or not I have completely driven the characteristics of those tribes from my mind. We are Israel in that verse.

I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.

Lest the mind become desolate of the spirit of God, that is to say. The beasts of the field is symbolic language for unregenerate man. So then the following verse makes perfect sense as opposed to literal cattle, "and the beast of the field multiply against thee". Its all about being born again, it always is.

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 11:44 AM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#48 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 12:09 PM

Fort, I've read Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13, Judges 1:1-10, 17, 27 -33; 3:1-5. I can't see anything there implying that we are not to take the text literally.

What those passages together tell us is that while Judah for the most part eliminated the native peoples in their particular allotted territory as God told them to do, other tribes (such as Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali) failed to eliminate the native peoples in their respective territories. The overall result was that (as summarised in Judges 3) Israel had failed to drive them all out as God told them to, and therefore they remained to cause ongoing problems for Israel.

I see no contradiction of any kind here. What do you see in these passages that requires a non-literal reading of the text?

Edited by Mark Taunton, 27 December 2010 - 12:13 PM.


#49 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 27 December 2010 - 12:44 PM

I see no contradiction of any kind here. What do you see in these passages that requires a non-literal reading of the text?

Whether its literal history or not, is it not obvious all the meaning is in what they represents when you take words like "Israel" as relating to the spiritual man, the land as referring to your mind, the enemies as the doubts and enemies of God that exist within our mind? Someone said earlier "yes, we can add this level of meaning to the text", which totally misses the point, that IS the PRIMARY meaning God intends us to derive from the text. Not endless debate about whether or not this happened just like this in history.

What those passages together tell us is that while Judah for the most part eliminated the native peoples in their particular allotted territory as God told them to do, other tribes (such as Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali) failed to eliminate the native peoples in their respective territories. The overall result was that (as summarised in Judges 3) Israel had failed to drive them all out as God told them to, and therefore they remained to cause ongoing problems for Israel.


Mark, you are Israel, and before that you were Egypt. Learn what characteristics all those tribes represent as emotions and thoughts in our mind because the last line in bold is not asking us to think of some historic event and its accuracy, but whether or not in the here and now the characteristics of those tribes remained in the land (your current mind) and caused ongoing problems for you, Israel, the Christadelphian community, Gods people etc.

I think traditionally when we have read these stories we have said the literal sense is the primary, most important, and yes we can add another level of meaning, but the more you study the Bible with your eyes open it is actually the opposite way around. Infact, intentional paradox and moral absurdity to force a spiritual interpretation of the Bible and abandon the literal is NOT A THEORY, it is right their in John chapter 6 and Christs cannablism imagery. How can the literal sense be the primary when it only applies to one generation of Jews when the spiritual sense applied to every subsequent generation of Jews and the entire history of Bible reading people?

Edited by Mercia2, 27 December 2010 - 12:54 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#50 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 27 December 2010 - 07:56 PM

Fort, I've read Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13, Judges 1:1-10, 17, 27 -33; 3:1-5. I can't see anything there implying that we are not to take the text literally.

What those passages together tell us is that while Judah for the most part eliminated the native peoples in their particular allotted territory as God told them to do, other tribes (such as Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali) failed to eliminate the native peoples in their respective territories. The overall result was that (as summarised in Judges 3) Israel had failed to drive them all out as God told them to, and therefore they remained to cause ongoing problems for Israel.


So in other words, you see exactly what I see, that the Canaanites were not totally annihilated. The Canaanites were not totally destroyed, many of them were still around after Joshua's conquest. You cannot deny it, you've now acknowledged it. That took a while, but thank you (at last).

I see no contradiction of any kind here.


I made no reference to any contradiction here.

What do you see in these passages that requires a non-literal reading of the text?


I read these passages literally. I said nothing about reading them non-literally.

#51 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 03:42 AM

So in other words, you see exactly what I see, that the Canaanites were not totally annihilated. The Canaanites were not totally destroyed, many of them were still around after Joshua's conquest. You cannot deny it, you've now acknowledged it. That took a while, but thank you (at last).

Fort, that's total misrepresentation - I've never said anything otherwise, yet you speak as if I had. In my first post, I took issue with the basic claim, as presented by Ken with reference to the writings of scholars, that in some places scripture says all the Canaanites were completely destroyed, whereas in others it says they were not all destroyed. I pointed out the the first claim is false; scripture nowhere claims that all the Canaanites were completely exterminated. I've never denied it; I've never not acknowledged this, nothing "took a while", at all. So please desist from that false way of speaking about my position, because it has not changed in any way.

What do you see in these passages that requires a non-literal reading of the text?


I read these passages literally. I said nothing about reading them non-literally.

Then what passages do you believe we are not supposed to take literally? You are certainly claiming that "the text" was not intended to be taken literally. You said, and Kay picked up:

5. God did know it was going to be read with modern eyes, and He also gave people an absolutely transparent method of understanding that the text was not intended to be taken literally, a method which required no scholarship or special learning whatsoever.

You agree that scripture shows the Canaanites (and indeed the other nations who also inhabited the land) were not all completely destroyed. Presumably, then, you think there is a passage which says that they were, but which therefore must be understood as not to be taken literally, but to mean something other than what it says. What passage is that?

Edited by Mark Taunton, 28 December 2010 - 03:57 AM.


#52 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 08:02 AM

Fort, that's total misrepresentation - I've never said anything otherwise, yet you speak as if I had. In my first post, I took issue with the basic claim, as presented by Ken with reference to the writings of scholars, that in some places scripture says all the Canaanites were completely destroyed, whereas in others it says they were not all destroyed. I pointed out the the first claim is false; scripture nowhere claims that all the Canaanites were completely exterminated. I've never denied it; I've never not acknowledged this, nothing "took a while", at all. So please desist from that false way of speaking about my position, because it has not changed in any way.


Don't get me wrong, I applaud this change of mind; it's refreshing.

Then what passages do you believe we are not supposed to take literally?


The passages to which I referred specifically when I said we are not supposed to take them literally. Please read them.

You agree that scripture shows the Canaanites (and indeed the other nations who also inhabited the land) were not all completely destroyed.


I 'agree'? I said it first, you've come late to the party.

Presumably, then...


Don't presume anything. Just read what I wrote.

#53 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 08:59 AM

Mercia, you will find that in a good number of my posts on BTDF I point out spiritual significance in historical events recorded in scripture. I am by no means concerned only with the original natural sense, I appreciate there are also spiritual issues which arise from the words.

Jesus himself taught his disciples that he, chiefly, is spoken about throughout the word of God that had been revealed by that time. Whether you start with Moses, as on one occasion he did (Luke 24:27) or in Isaiah as Philip did (Acts 8:35), or you go back to Abraham as Paul shows (Gal 3:8), the gospel concerning Jesus Christ is consistently found in all the scriptures. This is so of course because the words we read are not the words of men giving their own thoughts and ideas from their own perception of events, but a spiritual account, the words of God himself, which he spoke in the prophets (Heb 1:1); they spoke not of themselves but exactly as they were impelled to by God's spirit (2 Pet 1:21), revealing beforehand the salvation that God purposed in Christ from the very beginning (1 Pet 1:9-12).

In regard to the era discussed in this thread, the spiritual picture is not hard to see. Firstly, it is of course Joshua (= Jesus, same spelling in NT, see Ac 7:45), who leads the people of Israel into the promised land, to take possession of it. This anticipates and typifies in advance the time when Jesus, God's holy one, his anointed, beloved son, will lead the saints to possess the kingdom (Dan 7:22) that God has prepared from the foundation of the world (Mt 25:34) and promised to those that love him (Jas 2:5).

But of course the point is that the people of Israel in the time of Joshua and the judges were imperfect and flawed, as we all are. They did not wholly believe God and faithfully fulfil his commandments. The flesh got in the way; the things of the world were too appealing; they did not all want to destroy completely the abominations that filled the land (and the people responsible for them), and thus fell short of the glory of God. In the same way, disciples of Jesus are still subject to weakness, struggling against the will of the flesh which opposes the law and will of God (Rom 7:14-25). We long to inherit the kingdom, but our present flesh-and-blood state cannot inherit it; so we await and long for that moment of transformation (1 Cor 15:50-53) to a state of sinlessness and immortal incorruptibility, to partake of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4).

In the meantime, we have a warfare to wage, in faith (1 Tim 6:12). We must fight that good fight, armed with the various elements of the armour of God (Eph 6:10-17) which are not fleshly, physical implements (2 Cor 10:3-4), but spiritual; the chief weapon is of course the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17).

And just as Israel were commanded to kill the people of the land, whose abominable practices defiled it, so we have a job of killing to do; not of course to execute God's vengeance upon wicked people now - we wait for the just and righteous judge to appear, who will do that - but a mortifying, that is, putting to death, of the works of the flesh:

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

And what those "deeds of the body" are is made clear in another place; it's not just a question of doubts and lack of faith. We must kill the works of the flesh; we must stop doing the things that by nature we desire to do, which are just as unacceptable with God as the corruptions of the seven nations in the land of Canaan were:

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

The metaphor is clear, and its origin is unambiguous. The deeds of the body, the works of the flesh, are things that must be killed, just as the Canaanites, Amorites, Perizites, etc, were to be killed by the children of Israel. We cannot truly make sense of the metaphor unless we perceive the reality of the record of Israel's entry into the land and what God instructed them to do its corrupt inhabitants, who were guilty of all of the above sins. Death was as real and serious in Joshua's day as ever it has been. Killing means killing. It's no good seeking to spiritualise it all, and ignoring the fundamental scriptural teaching: if we sin against God, we will die, in just as real a manner as Adam did and all men ever since have done. If we don't grasp that the spiritual notion is founded on the natural one that precedes it (which principle is clear in e.g. 1 Cor 15:42-49), then we haven't really understood it.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 28 December 2010 - 09:24 AM.


#54 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:23 AM

Fort, firstly you are clearly ignoring what I wrote. There has been no change of mind on my part. .

Secondly, please explain in your own words why anything in passages such as Joshua 10-11 (as I presume you mean, though you could just have said so) is not intended to be read literally. Merely quoting the opinions of certain sceptical scholars, who consider the words there as necessarily hyperbole, is hardly adequate.

#55 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:59 AM

Fort, firstly you are clearly ignoring what I wrote. There has been no change of mind on my part. .


Welcome to discussions the Taunton way. It isn't so fun when you're on the receiving end, is it?

Secondly, please explain in your own words why anything in passages such as Joshua 10-11 (as I presume you mean, though you could just have said so) is not intended to be read literally.


Again, don't presume anything. Just read what I wrote. The argument has been made with complete clarity.

Merely quoting the opinions of certain sceptical scholars, who consider the words there as necessarily hyperbole, is hardly adequate.


I have not quoted the opinions of any skeptical scholars, and I have made my own argument on the basis of the text (the relevant scholarship simply proves that my argument is correct). Your failure to read what I write does not encourage me to believe that writing it again will result in you starting to read it. In the meantime, when you have an argument of your own which is based on reality rather than 'What Mark Taunton thinks', let me know.

#56 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts

Posted 28 December 2010 - 10:24 AM

Fort, I see no argument of your own in this thread regarding Joshua 10-11, and how it is not supposed to be read literally. The only posting by you which even includes any mention of those chapters was composed of quotations from scholars who are indeed sceptical of their truth as written, and propose instead that some statements there are hyperbole. You yourself made no argument at all about the Joshua 10-11 passage; you have not even made an explicit reference to it as you claimed, so far as I have found. Ken certainly mentioned it and made claims about it, but you have not. You have certainly repeatedly referred to another different set of passages, ones we all accept as literally true, but not once to Joshua 10-11, other than in those quoted scholarly extracts. This is not merely what I think, but a fact of the content of this thread.

If I am wrong, you will of course be able to prove me wrong by identifying the relevant post of yours. I invite you to either do that, or to present what is lacking in your case, which is any justification that Joshua 10-11 was not intended to be understood as meaning exactly what it says.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 28 December 2010 - 10:41 AM.


#57 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:48 AM

Mercia, you will find that in a good number of my posts on BTDF I point out spiritual significance in historical events recorded in scripture. I am by no means concerned only with the original natural sense, I appreciate there are also spiritual issues which arise from the words.

I know you do and I learn things from Christadelphian contributors when they start perceiving such things and writing about them on here, only my main point is that I now believe the spiritual significance is so vastly more important than any historical literal event I am no longer really interested in whether it literally happened like that in history or not, Creation and Exodus specifically. Moreover, I think I can show evidence that when something literally understood is ludicrous or a moral absurdity, (cannabilism or literally climbimg back into your mothers womb) or even the death of the first born of Egypt etc, that all the meaning has been transferred from any literal understanding to purely metaphoric, and that God intentionally uses moral paradox and contradiction so we can recognise when He/the Bible, is doing this.
"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#58 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 28 December 2010 - 12:01 PM

Thanks Mark, I enjoyed and agree with you the rest of your reply to me.

And what those "deeds of the body" are is made clear in another place; it's not just a question of doubts and lack of faith. We must kill the works of the flesh


I think I do go further than your average Christadelphian here as I would see all the Old Testament battles as primarily intending to be understood as spiritual battles with words and types of spiritual battle that repeat through history including on this board. So when God talks of eating the flesh of mighty men in battle etc, it has zero significance in the literal sense (just like when Jesus said we are to eat his flesh and blood) and that all such examples (in the OT as well), should be interpretted as related to a metaphor about destroying the falsities of the flesh etc, as I highlight above in bold. So that it is not as someone said earlier that we can "add this level of meaning", rathar than this level of meaning should be in the primary, not secondary and I have come to believe most of the Bible if not all is written this way.
"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#59 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 28 December 2010 - 12:08 PM

he words there as necessarily hyperbole

What is this word hyperbole? It reminds of me of my mother when she is getting all irrational and over the top? I fear this is a word 'scholars' have made up when they are too blind to see the metahors and allegories echoed elsewhere yet they know the text is non literal?

Edited by Mercia2, 28 December 2010 - 03:56 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#60 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 28 December 2010 - 12:16 PM

Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton"


So it is an easy cop out? A 'scholar' would recognise the text as hyperbole and then he does not have to meditate upon it any further. It is just purely exaggeration? I think not. Yet if I read that a bag weighed a ton when in actual fact I knew it weighted a few grams, then I would recognise the intentional paradox like "the bag weighed a ton", I would then abandon the literal meaning of the text and look elsewhere in the Bible for the spiritual significance of "a ton" to see what God really means - and as God wrote it, then I would find the meaning echoed within the Bible as I always do, because thats how I know it is the word of God.

Clearly this is correct as my example with Jesus referring to literal cannablism dictates the complete abandonment of the literal sense for a spiritual meaning of those words and just calling it "hyperbole" would be a INCORRECT and LAZY assumption. When scholars start recognising how God uses intentional paradox and moral absurdity to force the abandonment of the literal meaning for a metaphoric one and then supply the metaphoric interpretation by letting the rest of the Bible interpret it, I will start to bother to listen to them, if they cannot even see that then they are inferior creatures and deserve none of my time or anyone elses.

Edited by Mercia2, 28 December 2010 - 12:24 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users