Temples from before 3000 found the island Sinai

[Elijah]

These [Bereans] were more noble ... in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. --Acts 17:11

It's interesting to note that your procedure is the exact opposite. 

I disagree. I think the procedure cannot be judged here, or misjudged. The scripture quoted is presumed as follows: They were told many things that they did not know are true or untrue. So they went to the scriptures that are always true to see if the words spoken to them by men of spirit are speaking the truth that is always there in the Bible. It is like saying nothing that anyone says is ever true unless we find it in the Bible. But it is not saying here that the Bible is infallible. The word of God is always infallible, but the Bible is not infallible, even though all of it is the word of God. No contradiction, it is perspective. Proper perspective versus wrong perspective of it. What you men do is argue what is word of God and what is not. And the Bible becomes the center when it isn't. Jesus said his truth of words is the center, he is the word, so that you quit using how it was written with what words as your excuse for all you beleive or do not beleive. But no one sees this do they.
The Boreans did not look in the scriptures as absolute truth to see if these words preached to them by men were true, but rather they did more than that, they looked in scripture to see if the scriptures are true. This doesnt mean pick and criticize words in the Bible as not true. It means determine how they are true and how they are not true. Just as many will say that Genesis describes a local Flood so that they say they do beleive Genesis flooding the whole 40-mile world of Ur, you zealous religious ones are no different in saying grandiose things contrary to God. One example being the fact all ancient religions teach that the current world was created by Flood (surroundings on Earth including weather and sky making a new heavens by losing the water canopy, and shifting Earth axis so the whole heavens of stars is called NEW), they teach that this current world was created by a 13-month long Flood; and yet Creationists teach all galaxies were created in 144 hours (6 days) before Adam. Did God get all pooped out that he could create billions of galaxies in 6 days of 144 hours but had to take a year to create the next world?

Wow I just realized something: the 7 days until the Flood like the 7 days until Adam. Some ancient texts say 7 day Flood instead of 40 day Flood or instead of a year Flood.
(all correct, just different aspect of same event, by same person Noah; but this is an example of how critics will declare 7 days and 40 days and a year to be three stories by three people.)

And this too: despite Marduk's 7 days being 7 x 52 calendar years (364 calendar years) 359 years nested between 360 years x 365 days = 365x 360 days... there is also the fact that Noah's year 1200 (in 2256 AM) and Adam's year 2400 are 144 years apart. That means if we look at year 2400 AM as marking the current world that will last 3600 more years (important because that year is mistaken as birth of a new world), then the 144 years precede that world as Creationists think 144 hours precede Adam. This means the 6 days of 24 hours that Creationists imagine is comparable to 6 spans of 24 years for the 144 years (1770-1626 BC). Notation: 24 years is the meeting of Jupiter and Venus as 3x 8 year Venus and 2x 12 year Jupiter. 1770 /1746 /1722 /1698 /1674 /1650/ 1626 BC of which the death of Jannes (father of Jannes and Jambres) appears to be 137 years 1650-1513 BC since many Genesis things are marked by birth and death. The year 1650 BC being 180 leap days of 720 years as if to imply Jannes was born 24 years before Amizaduga died.

And to answer your question: there is a lack of physical evidence for a Hebrew Exodus, an event that should have left physical traces. God is intangible, but the hints of God's presence are all around me on a daily basis. Unlike for you [seemingly], I do not perceive God as a relic whose presence I can only get a sense of by opening up the pages of the Bible.

I disagree in your using the word LACK. In all things, evidence exists of it as true or untrue while men blind themselves saying I do not see it, nor will I, nor do I want to, I refuse to. Ironically, if our God exists as a person, with all the things he proves as true by science that religion snubs by saying it is all tangible and physical nothing, he is also proving to us that science is beleiving only the mass of what God clearly shows and they refuse to beleive anything that isn't repeated 100 times. The scientific postulate of 100 times ignores that some things happen only twice, or once. A note to the zealous religious: this doesn't mean that all one time occurances are each a miracle otherwise we are eliminating God with a scientific explanation. You are ignoring those who see the scientific answer proves it true by God. Our problem is not science or myth, or science or miracle, etc. It is simply what ever we call it, is it true or not true. I have written the fact that Exodus is migration, and the world has had many mass migrations that ancient scolars do confuse the years with that of when Hyksos followed Jews who followed Moses out. The true story of Exodus is about a schooled person smart enough to see he understands the school textbooks better than his city teachers do, and some schooling is out on the farm not in the city. He then comes back to predict what the city schools cannot predict. Each time the teachers have 20/20 hindsight to say Moses just lucked out, he sees nothing. Then in the greatest act of faith, Moses continues to trust that major dangerous disasters can be walked right thru by following it out of Egypt. Trusting that it is God we decide that when someone dies during a prediction by lagging behing like Lots wife that then it must be God wanted her dead. So then to you believe Lot's wife deserved death with married homo men of Sodom, the wives of these gays, and daughters of these gays while gays in Greece didn't even suffer this disaster? You ignore the simple science that Shem was 450 years old, and saw plate tectonics for 450 years after a whole Earth was cracked by disaster. You ignore this proves predictions are made better than our past 20th century 100 years. You ignore, that timing was important to be out before sunrise. You ignore, the men left and didnt stay for Lot's wife to make up her mind as they pushed them along; the two men did not go with to Zoar, because Zoar was a border risk of dying, for people too lazy to fully evacuate to a safe distance. The cost, his wife. The lesson also teaches that in any moral issue, people will say, if you are wrong about sex, then you cant be right about earthquakes either. In other words a gay man won't get on Noah's ark to save his life beacuse he is being told by Noah what he does is dirt. (Analogy only, since first gay sex indicated is Canaan in Noah's tent after Flood.)

Then it's not surprising that your viewpoint regarding God is not in harmony with the God of the Bible.

And whose is, and whose isnt? Is mine? Is yours? The WatchTower says this alot, and I always relaized anyone can say it, and everyone does say it. It is ploy. It is redundant, goes without saying that we beleive things contrary to what they are, in anything, all things, whatever topic. Even the God of the Bible is not the God of the Bible, because Isaac's God chose Esau and Rebbekah's God chose Jacob; the Bible is the truth that eventually came true, Esau became no 3500-year nation as Jacob did, therefore God proved to be Jacob and not Esau. What Isaac knew and saw could not go beyond his death at 180 (in 1738 BC) beleiving his 30-year old grandson Joseph had died 13 years ago (in 1750 BC) at only 17 shortly after Hamurabi the king of the 4 quarters. But instead Joseph was being made a king of kings in Egypt of the 4 quarters. Thus most scholars ignore that the Bible is about beleiving what you can't see. No that doesn't mean beleiving what nobody can see, but beleiving others what they see, when you can't. So you beleive Moses because he sees, and you dont. And you beleive Jesus because he sees, and you don't. And perhaps you beleive yourself because you see (God) and no one else in the world does. This is why it goes back to two boys /men making a wager or bet what this fire they play with will do when burning food or animal. And do you then get angry and kill afterward. Then do we punish the man who kills, so that man for man becomes family for family, then city for city, then nation for nation until children are the sacrifice on the altar of war. Jesus taught to sacrifice yourself and it will make you all king of kings and Melchizedeks by your example. This is why I hate it, but I remind myself to sacrifice.

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. --Luke 24:27 

And so? We all do this. We expound on how youre not of the Bible like those in the Bible who were not of God, and we expound how ourselves are of God by saying we are like others in the Bible who are of God. People must beleive the Bible has comprehension with purpose before they beleive it refers to people like Jesus who will save us. Your point is useless to anyone but a person claiming to be Christian. The Jews were already christains, meaning they were awaiting a Jewish christ. But  it is useless if you are Hindu awaiting a Hindu christ.

God is a force, both dynamic and subtle, that astonishes me all the time within my own every day existence.

Yes I agree. But now, how do you feel about his responsibility to teaching us. The fact he must think like we do or we could not have been created. The issue we see of God is the why this and why that. As if it is not right for what we see as horror and holacaust to us. Paul says God is the creator or king, we are the subject the pottery. Be willing to accept things as are without self-pity or intent to rise above others. This doesn't mean invent nothing as it seems Slumdog Millionaires just ride the tide of whatever happensas if fated must be defined as predestined. I beleive in fate, but not predestination. They are said to be the same and are not. Just as melancholy is not just sad, it is different. We create different words such as depression and melancholy so that we understand they are not the same.

The only force God is exerting in this age is his Word inside His believers.  And God isn't the only one who can astonish people.  One had best learn to tell the difference...

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: --Ephesians 6:12-17

That sword the only "force" that will avail anyone in this life.

This is not a doctrine of saying physical things (and science) are nothing, that all that is good is invisiible and spirit. This is not contrasting a physical world to spiritual world as if the physical is not of God and the spiritual is of God. It is saying that the physical world is of God, but it is moved by a spritual world of God. What we do in spirit moves and changes the physical. It is saying that our spirit or atitudes or morals will create a worse world or better world. It is not advocating laziness to physical things. You work to eat. You sew to reap. And so the greatest fight is not that of the elements trying to repaint your house or keep it from falling, but spiritual like the house of your family or children or church being the people not the physical building. But you cannot ignore the physical or your spirit will not provide the homes and buildings for family and church. He that says spritual food is more than physical food is true and correct, but he does not have the spirit if it does not move him to feed others real food along with it. So you see you argue spirit and physics in a way that you both stand beside the truth, real close to it, but on opposite sides, neither of you actually touching it.

[notalent]

These [Bereans] were more noble ... in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. --Acts 17:11

It's interesting to note that your procedure is the exact opposite. 

I disagree. I think the procedure cannot be judged here, or misjudged. The scripture quoted is presumed as follows: They were told many things that they did not know are true or untrue. So they went to the scriptures that are always true to see if the words spoken to them by men of spirit are speaking the truth that is always there in the Bible. It is like saying nothing that anyone says is ever true unless we find it in the Bible. But it is not saying here that the Bible is infallible. The word of God is always infallible, but the Bible is not infallible, even though all of it is the word of God. No contradiction, it is perspective.

This is the sort of "perspective" that allows one to have it both ways, such that one can, for example, be an unrepentant covenant breaker, content to leave creditors high and dry, seeing no sin in it whatsoever.

For out of the heart proceed ... thefts, false witness... --Matthew 15:19

Neither repented they ... of their thefts.   --Revelation 9:21

[Elijah]

well a bus ride thru Ankara to the American Embassy reveals alot of HSBC banks, and apparently they paid this hotel owner in Dogubayzit a nice maxed out $200,000 for remodeling. Needless to say it made American ghetto qualified as condemned for immediate raizing into being sufficient to avoid our own local American government housing development statutes. But personally I don't see $200,000 of which I never qualified for in my life other than to refinance from $123,000 house up to $185,000 appraised equity. Prices here are 2.00 TL for a 4-inch square chocolate bar alot cheaper at a Milwaukee WalMart (with 1.25 TL = $1.00). Polyeurthane similar to ski boots for hiking are 700.00 TL over $560.00, a bag of nacho doritos half our family size is 2 TL. So looks like we waste good money over seas, or are these not our banks here. I am posting about research and attempted research, and your remarks are only about personal business. I could be a thief and steal the true real wood off the ark of Noah and my trash life is suppose to mean it is not Noah's ark. I know the difference between people who lie once a day, and those who can't say one single thing that's true without living the enjoyment of lying and BS to everyone. It teaches me, that waht very little anyone does for someone else is better than these habitual overall constant liars, who if they help by clearing the dimes off your dinner table, it is so they get a free meal, and steal your plasma TV afterward... some take the dimes too, while others think leaving the dimes behind proves they only steal because it's for survival or they'd die. What catagory do you fit into. You make it quite clear you will stand in the crowd when i soon die. So I guess that will make it twice, since I preach one is greater who will soon die after me.

THE ELIJAH, the one Jehovah has chosen.
BTW your current public comments to me here remind of my coworker at Chrysler who needed to show me how much he knew more than me on the Bible and had to tell me that Moses was humble, God chose a murderer; he said he bet I didnt know that.

[notalent]

THE ELIJAH, the one Jehovah has chosen.

Seems like he could have done a whole lot better in choosing, at least someone who could get a prophecy right.  It must be a source of embarrassment that the creator of the universe can't get his prophet to correctly report the date of an asteroid fall.  I mean, he could have just pointed out it's location in space to a real astronomer, who could then do the math and predict earth fall to the day, pretty much. 

So whom has he chosen, and for what did he choose them?  I'll use my Bible understanding to hazard a prediction.  My prophecy is that no giant asteroid will strike the earth this year or the next year 2010.  Will we now see which of us is a true prophet, and which of us continues to be a false one? 

BTW your current public comments to me here remind of my coworker at Chrysler who needed to show me how much he knew more than me on the Bible and had to tell me that Moses was humble, God chose a murderer; he said he bet I didn't know that.

It's an erroneous argument without first considering the key word regarding all sin, repentance.  "They repented not of their thefts."  It makes all the difference in the world.  Did you not know this?

[tourmaline]

Hello,

Elijah: Your posts are fascinating and very profound at times. I enjoy reading them. I think that NoTalent and I can be perceived as being similar at times because we both have a tendency to come off sounding verbose and arrogant - and of course the fact that we both have a belief in God is another commonality. But our spiritual approaches are completely divergent.
BTW: Are you in Turkey? I traveled through Turkey and Syria for a month and half a few years ago. It was an incredible experience. My favorite Turkish city is Antakya. Always wanted to get to Haran but didn't make it. Next time...

NoTalent: You have begun copying and pasting an assortment of New Testament passages to reinforce the party line, which is a hackneyed and deeply old-fashioned way of engaging in dialogue...so this is where I get off. Happy trails.

[Elijah]

I like the Khurds here, they have a good view of Allah saying if it is of Allah it will happen, and if it doesnt happen then it wasnt. To me it says the same as nothing ventured nothing gained; not that I respect people who gain the front cover of PlayBoy. Me? No, I have never traveled alone before. Was terrified going to Yerevan, terrified coming to Istanvbul and Van, terrified of an SUV drive to Dogubayazit, and gained my courage on a bus to Ankara ony to tuck tail and say wow I can be home today on this immediate flight? Never had I ever had the option of an immediate flight before... hmm but now twice ... flight to Michael Jacksons cemetery.
Anyways, this time was a return to Ankara by bus from Istanbul which was closest cheap flight to Ankara or Ararat, and after applying for permit they say dont expect until Sept 8-15, I sit here at the hotel watching Ararat snow melt on hot days eating nacho doritoes. A night sleep on a plane, a night sleep on a bus station bench, and a night sleep on a bus. I then slept 24 hours in a nice bed. YOUTUBE is banned here and blocked. Two years ago the Admin said I should blog, and hey just found out Google is easy.

http://mountararatpics.blogspot.com/

[notalent]

NoTalent: You have begun copying and pasting an assortment of New Testament passages to reinforce the party line, which is a hackneyed and deeply old-fashioned way of engaging in dialogue...so this is where I get off. Happy trails.

I thought you said you loved the Bible?  If I'd known that was an "exaggeration", I wouldn't have bothered using it to make my case.

[notalent]

I like the Khurds here, they have a good view of Allah saying if it is of Allah it will happen, and if it doesnt happen then it wasnt. To me it says the same as nothing ventured nothing gained;

So, you were chosen by Jehovah for a spectacularly important mission, and the means by which it is accomplished is to make several specific predictions of global disaster that all turn out to be wrong.  This seems a not very effective way of establishing your bona fides.

[Elijah]

Happy trails.
Some where are there not more seriously erring people you wish to follow to criticize. Or do you justify Jesus only because of who you beleive he was, and what he was, instead of actually seeing that their nagging his -ss was abusive to all people of good intent. (Yes I realize good intent is not enough if you are wrong, but thats why the mirror, verbal correction with good intent is better than harrassment with good intent).

[tourmaline]

Merhaba, Elijah: I have such fond memories of traveling alone in Turkey. People were incredibly hospitable, and I look back on my travels there with great longing. I spent alot of time in Istanbul,  going to the Syrian Embassy each day on the other side of the city, until I FINALLY was able to secure a Syrian visa. It was such a grand adventure! I left Istanbul by train one night at about midnight bound for the South from Haydarpasa train station. I had many Kurdish friends in Istanbul, a couple from Dogubayazit actually. But my best friend of all was a wonderful, elegant Kurd from Diyarbakir, we had so many fun adventures traipsing around Istanbul at all hours. He lives in the states now.

Damascus was..challenging. I was a young woman with blonde hair, pale skin, and blue eyes, so all the men thought I was a Russian prostitute. It was not good, despite the fact that I dressed conservatively. My last 2 days in Damascus, I decided to "go local": In the old city (from which Paul was lowered down in a basket!), I bought a thin purple pashmina and I wore it as a veil over my face. I dressed in a black robe, veiled my face and hair with my long purple pashmina scarf, scented myself with frankincense oil (which I still wear) and rimmed my eyes with kohl. I looked so exotic!...and yet the men kept their distance and looked at me with much more awe and respect when I dressed like this than when I dressed like a like a Western girl...It was a very exciting time for me.

Elijah, be careful of getting caught up (in a whirlwind...just kidding!). The ark story really does seem to exert a very powerful pull on many people - including me. Genesis is my favorite book of the Bible and those stories are very evocative. I don't know what the "Ararat Anomaly" is, but I personally don't think it's Noah's ark. It could be a rock formation, a trick of light and shadow. I don't think Ahora gorge, where the anomaly is, is visible from Dogubayazit is it?

I wrote a paper once about a site near Dogubayazit called Durupinar: the thesis of my paper was that the rock formation of Durupinar, which bears an unbelievable resemblance to a massive ship's hull complete with hollowed out interior, was the inspiration for the Near Eastern flood stories. I argued that the flood stories were etiological in nature, composed to explain how this huge "ship" had gotten there. The Bible locates the ark in Harey Ararat, the hills/mountains (plural) of Ararat, which is just where the Durupinar formation is. Anyway, just wanted to share and reminisce. Take care of yourself, and remember to  güle güle ("go laughingly"!).



NoTalent:

I thought you said you loved the Bible?  If I'd known that was an "exaggeration", I wouldn't have bothered using it to make my case.

I do love the Bible, but I also said in the same statement that I was a follower of the Bible in a different way than you are. Those references you provide hold no water for me theologically. While I certainly find some parts of the Bible to be deeply inspiring and moving, I am also aware that because the Bible is written by many authors and the corpus is so vast and diverse, that there are many characterizations of God in the Bible. We could take anything - literally anything - and I could pour through the Bible and find verses that I could present to support it.

I took a class in college about Post Holocaust Jewish & Christian Theology. The class was taught by a rabbi who was a very intense and provocative person. He was a tall, hulking, middle age man who looked just like Steven Spielberg. Anyway, during one of his lectures, he picked up a book: it was Hitler's Mein Kampf. He read off a long rambling passage which, paraphrased, said "Every last one must be expunged from our midst for they are evil and we must never allow them to live among us, because they are parasites who will corrupt us." The rabbi tossed the book onto his desk and picked up another book. It was the Bible, and he read from the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua: "The Canaanite is evil in the sight of the Lord, you shall utterly destroy his seed and his children's seed...You will not live among them for they will corrupt you. They shall be utterly destroyed from the face of the land, and you will take their food and their animals....etc."

He tossed the Bible on his desk, smirked ironically, and said "Do we really need this sh*t?"

No one moved for about 5 seconds as the rabbi stood their staring at each of the students. One girl started to gather her things and left. She couldn't take the implicit indictment that hung in the air:
That the God of the Bible in this passage was evil personified, on the same level as Hitler.

My point, and I think the Rabbi's point, is that the Bible contains many voices, some are incredibly compassionate and some are horrifyingly intolerant. You can wish it away or attempt to justify the bad parts by saying "Well Jesus did away with that kind of vengeful God." But if you say that then you have to admit that there is more than one Biblical God.

[notalent]

NoTalent:

I thought you said you loved the Bible?  If I'd known that was an "exaggeration", I wouldn't have bothered using it to make my case.

I do love the Bible, but I also said in the same statement that I was a follower of the Bible in a different way than you are. Those references you provide hold no water for me theologically. While I certainly find some parts of the Bible to be deeply inspiring and moving, I am also aware that because the Bible is written by many authors and the corpus is so vast and diverse, that there are many characterizations of God in the Bible. We could take anything - literally anything - and I could pour through the Bible and find verses that I could present to support it.

I took a class in college about Post Holocaust Jewish & Christian Theology. The class was taught by a rabbi who was a very intense and provocative person. He was a tall, hulking, middle age man who looked just like Steven Spielberg. Anyway, during one of his lectures, he picked up a book: it was Hitler's Mein Kampf. He read off a long rambling passage which, paraphrased, said "Every last one must be expunged from our midst for they are evil and we must never allow them to live among us, because they are parasites who will corrupt us." The rabbi tossed the book onto his desk and picked up another book. It was the Bible, and he read from the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua: "The Canaanite is evil in the sight of the Lord, you shall utterly destroy his seed and his children's seed...You will not live among them for they will corrupt you. They shall be utterly destroyed from the face of the land, and you will take their food and their animals....etc."

He tossed the Bible on his desk, smirked ironically, and said "Do we really need this sh*t?"

No one moved for about 5 seconds as the rabbi stood their staring at each of the students. One girl started to gather her things and left. She couldn't take the implicit indictment that hung in the air:
That the God of the Bible in this passage was evil personified, on the same level as Hitler.

There's a huge difference between being God and playing god.  Hitler was a man trying to play god, which is evil.  He had no just cause against the Jews.   But God had just cause against Canaan, and God is the only judge of nations and peoples and tongues.  Who but God could pronounce their judgment and execute it justly as the physically present theocratic King of Israel -- pillar of fire and smoke and tabernacle?  If not God, then who? (That's a rhetorical question.)  God even gave warning to them for hundreds of years. 

Think about it.  Even the God of your faith allows entire peoples to be wiped out by natural disasters.  Do you blame him for not preventing these?  For not preventing holocausts?  Is your God evil for allowing these things, or even bringing them about?  Of course not.  God sees the end from the beginning.  He can be God justly because he has all the facts, for he IS God.  People cannot play god justly.

But leftist professors know all the tricks for separating young believers from their faith.

Remember the GENESIS/DEUTERONOMY/JOSHUA Linkage.

Please recall: the curse against Canaan pronounced by Noah.  Canaan was the offspring of incest between Mrs Noah (Noah's "nakedness") and Ham.  Look how many heathen religions have the mother-son copulation/offspring motif.  That reality is what those myths are built upon.  Know your ancient polytheistic mythology. 

Noah basically prophesied that Canaanite clans would exhibit the characteristics implied in Ham's sin, and be subject to judgment because of it.  And indeed, archaeology confirms that Canaanite cultures, from top to bottom, were rife with sexual degeneracy and infanticide. 

And it's not like the Canaanites didn't have warnings or positive examples. 

1) They had the oracle of Salem, Melchizedek (probably Shem). 

2) They had the warning of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.

3) They had the influence of righteous Abraham, a large corporate entity in his own right. Remember God's prophecy to Abraham,  "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." --Genesis 15:16 

That's at least 400 years warning.

4) They had the warning of the Exodus, "And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath." --Joshua 2:9-11

That's at least 40 years warning.

5) They were warned during the invasion itself.  And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: 3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over...(Dt 27:2-3).

Link to ...

And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.(Jos 8:32). ...There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them. (Jos 8:35).

This warning written on the stones had one positive result.  The Gibeonite deception was the result of reading the fine print about which nations should be destroyed, and which nations could make treaty.  The Gibeonites took full advantage of that knowledge to survive.

My point, and I think the Rabbi's point, is that the Bible contains many voices, some are incredibly compassionate and some are horrifyingly intolerant. You can wish it away or attempt to justify the bad parts by saying "Well Jesus did away with that kind of vengeful God." But if you say that then you have to admit that there is more than one Biblical God.

No, it's the same God all the way through.  He has compassion and patience, hundreds of years of it as illustrated with Canaan, and is not willing that any should perish.   But if people persist in their rebellion and ignore all his patience and spit upon his compassion, hundreds of years of it, then the judgment will eventually come and it will be just and it will be severe.  Don't let a talking snake convince you otherwise, "Did God really say....?"

[Elijah]

Jars of babies are found mass buried in Canaanite worship. Just as you find mass graves of Jews who were not killed for disease. The parallel drawn may be that Moses and Joshua said the same as Hitler but they were speaking as if they were Americans who must do this to Nazis... not Nazis to Jews. Jews did not due in Germany what Canaanites did in Canaan. Canaanites were a people of free sex and post-abortion. This doesnt mean we should do this again, because 1000 years pass from 1513-513 BC and 1473-473 BC and 1467- 467 BC.... (wow Ezra in 468 BC was 1000 years) and in that 1000 years all Jews should have been like Jesus and were not. It failed. It showed a law of God could be formed and created, but no one lives by it. Living by it didnt mean 200 amendments to each law as Pharisees became and Americans have become. Holding to truth even under threat of death, and not being silent to hold that truth, is the answer in sacrifice. Give of yourself, not just your food and sheep. Nor misinterpret as Aztec cut hearts out in giving out your heart.
If the Americans wrote a book in Jewish that said exterminate the Nazis lest they corrupt us, the message of the book would have been like Moses, but that rabbi could not have likened Canaanite extermination to Jewish. America has just exterminated Iraq, every Iraqi that I meet around the world talks about there new homes in Brazil and Hawaii and all over saying America dispersed them. They don't say this with hate, but as fact. Butting in occurs everywhere for 4000 years. The Jewish war was an attempt to have a Jewish nation as all other nations war to keep their own ways too. It simply didnt work completely until Jesus cleared things up about kingdoms.
This has got to be the most informative post you posted NoTalent.

[tourmaline]

Notalent: I agree with Elijah that that was a great post. You have many excellent points (but also a couple fanciful ones: Melchizedeq = Noah's son Shem??? hmmm...), and I found your argument deeply thought provoking.

While there is no denying that the Levantine cultures of this time-period engaged in child sacrifice, and that their cultic worship was in many ways bound up with sexuality and "sacred" prostitution, I'm just not sure that I could ever consider genocide an appropriate response. Why is the call to genocide acceptable when it comes to ridding the land of the abominable Canaanites, but when the brutal Romans were occupying the land 1500 years later, God's response is inconsistent: he sends a seemingly pacifist teacher who teaches turning the other cheek and whose followers peacefully infiltrate Roman society over the course of 400 years, which culminates in the new movement becoming dominant. I much prefer the latter scenario. The Canaanite culture, above all, was ignorant. Rather than commanding that the Canaanites all be slaughtered, why not send out emissaries of the one true God to go out into the towns and countryside and teach people about the the God of Israel, that he is the one and only [relevant] God, and that the worship he requires is different from what has been done before?

Remember that the Israelites happened to meet up with Rahab the Canaanite prostitute in Jericho, and she was considered righteous for the help she offered the Israelites. As tempting as it is to view the Canaanites as a seething mass of evil, these were individual men, women and children, and it is very ignorant to suggest that every single one of them was rotten to the core. In slaughtering the inhabitants of the land, you slaughter every Rahab (the proverbial whore with a heart of gold) and Lot (the sojourner who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time).

Haven't Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, the Holocaust taught us that violence simply creates more hostility and thus ultimately begets more violence? You cannot hope to end violent behavior by acting violently. By acting violently, you merely set an example of violence and further perpetuate the chain of vengeance. Violence is not an ideal response in my opinion, because as a student of history it's clear that violence fuels violence - does not eradicate it. And remember: Abraham saw fit to argue with God (Genesis 18), to demand, in a sense, that God not lose site of the small pockets of righteous people found within a larger sinful population. One can only wonder why if Abraham thought it o.k. to argue with God for the lives of the righteous within Sodom - particularly his nephew Lot - why he did not argue with God for the life of his son, Isaac.

Canaan was the offspring of incest between Mrs Noah (Noah's "nakedness") and Ham.  Look how many heathen religions have the mother-son copulation/offspring motif.  That reality is what those myths are built upon.  Know your ancient polytheistic mythology. 

I'm sorry, Ham was intimate with his mother?!
I don't derive that from the text. There are many apocryphal traditions that say all sort of things and make all sorts of connections (especially Jewish Midrash), but which cannot be taken as fact, and in the case of Midrash, are not intended to be fact. Give me a break...This and the Shem/Melchizedeq comment are really straining credulity. Let's stick to what the Bible actually says, please.

[notalent]

Notalent: I agree with Elijah that that was a great post. You have many excellent points (but also a couple fanciful ones: Melchizedeq = Noah's son Shem??? hmmm...), and I found your argument deeply thought provoking.

While there is no denying that the Levantine cultures of this time-period engaged in child sacrifice, and that their cultic worship was in many ways bound up with sexuality and "sacred" prostitution, I'm just not sure that I could ever consider genocide an appropriate response.

If it was an appropriate response for Sodom and Gomorrah...

Why is the call to genocide acceptable when it comes to ridding the land of the abominable Canaanites, but when the brutal Romans were occupying the land 1500 years later, God's response is inconsistent:

The Romans are a scourge nation to Israel, like Assyria and Babylon in their day.

he sends a seemingly pacifist teacher who teaches turning the other cheek and whose followers peacefully infiltrate Roman society over the course of 400 years, which culminates in the new movement becoming dominant.

But Jesus starts a New Covenant when Israel rejects the kingdom offer of the Messiah.  Now the law is applied in the hearts of all men whose bodies become a Temple.  Each man puts to death adultery, murder, theft, etc. in his own heart, makes his own body the whole burnt offering, as per  Romans 12:1.  The Law of Moses no longer defines a nation, but rather each heart of those that believe.  The land of Canaan is our own life, the wicked influences which we must conquer and destroy utterly, so that eventually, when they are all defeated, as David finished what Joshua started, and Solomon built it, our hearts can then become a Temple where God makes his dwelling within us.  But not until we conquer sin and wicked influences in our heart and life, keeping the commandments.  John 14:22 makes it clear.

I much prefer the latter scenario. The Canaanite culture, above all, was ignorant. Rather than commanding that the Canaanites all be slaughtered, why not send out emissaries of the one true God to go out into the towns and countryside and teach people about the the God of Israel, that he is the one and only [relevant] God, and that the worship he requires is different from what has been done before?

My previous post answered this.  They had the greatest oracle of all in Melchizedek living in their midst in Shalem.  They had the warning of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Nineveh listened where the Canaanites paid no heed to hundreds of years of example and warning.

Remember that the Israelites happened to meet up with Rahab the Canaanite prostitute in Jericho, and she was considered righteous for the help she offered the Israelites. As tempting as it is to view the Canaanites as a seething mass of evil, these were individual men, women and children, and it is very ignorant to suggest that every single one of them was rotten to the core.  In slaughtering the inhabitants of the land, you slaughter every Rahab (the proverbial whore with a heart of gold) and Lot (the sojourner who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time).

You are forgetting the Gibeonites.  They were spared because they read Moses' law on the stones, and used it to save themselves from destruction. 

Also remember that Abraham had already put your point to the test in Sodom and Gomorrah.  How many righteous were really there?  And even "those" ended up committing incest with each other, the fruit of their "righteousness" being Ammon and Moab.  I think God gave all the benefits of the doubt, and then some, wouldn't you say?

Haven't Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, the Holocaust taught us that violence simply creates more hostility and thus ultimately begets more violence? You cannot hope to end violent behavior by acting violently. By acting violently, you merely set an example of violence and further perpetuate the chain of vengeance.

This is true for unjust violence.  I agree.  But justice must wield power that is more than equal to that violence.

Violence is not an ideal response in my opinion, because as a student of history it's clear that violence fuels violence - does not eradicate it. And remember: Abraham saw fit to argue with God (Genesis 18), to demand, in a sense, that God not lose site of the small pockets of righteous people found within a larger sinful population. One can only wonder why if Abraham thought it o.k. to argue with God for the lives of the righteous within Sodom - particularly his nephew Lot - why he did not argue with God for the life of his son, Isaac.

He didn't need to argue for Isaac, because God had already promised Isaac would be the seed.  He was trusting that God would keep it, no matter what.  He'd already pretty much raised him and his wife from the dead, so to speak, to even conceive Isaac in the first place.  This was his final exam, which he passed with flying colors.   The picture of a willing son becoming the sacrifice is of course, Messianic.

Canaan was the offspring of incest between Mrs Noah (Noah's "nakedness") and Ham.  Look how many heathen religions have the mother-son copulation/offspring motif.  That reality is what those myths are built upon.  Know your ancient polytheistic mythology. 

I'm sorry, Ham was intimate with his mother?!
I don't derive that from the text.

If you compare scripture with itself, it becomes plain as day.  "The nakedness of thy father’s wife ... is thy father’s nakedness." --Leviticus 18:8   The whole chapter indicates this uncovering is a euphemism for physical intimacy.

Now link back to...

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." --Genesis 9:22

There are parallels.  Notice that Ham is not cursed, but rather the offspring of his offense.  Similarly, the offspring of David's offense against Uriah the Hittite is cursed.

But parent-child incest in particular seem to produce offspring that pose serious problems for the people of God in the future, e.g. Canaan, and Lot's offspring by his two daughters, Ammon and Moab.

There are many apocryphal traditions that say all sort of things and make all sorts of connections (especially Jewish Midrash), but which cannot be taken as fact, and in the case of Midrash, are not intended to be fact. Give me a break...This and the Shem/Melchizedeq comment are really straining credulity. Let's stick to what the Bible actually says, please.

If we follow your good advice here and stick to what the Bible actually says, then we note that Shem lived 500 years after the flood.  That means he is still alive when Abram arrives in Canaan.  That means Shem is still the family high priest/oracle for all Semitic clans.  This explains Abraham paying him tribute after the deliverance from Kedorlaomer.

I'm not saying people should die for this speculation, but it fits nicely.  It also sets up a nice chain of custody for the pre-flood eye-witness narratives, passed on with perfect continuity --  Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Joseph-Moses, etc. 

[Elijah]

Mother with son intercourse is an astronomic observation without living individuals actually being involved. It was an excuse for those wicked who did such things the first time to say it was done in what they read pretending what they read must have been two people or two gods instead of realizing they were correlations. Words are male or female and the horizon is the best female example who is mother born to everything rising in the east at the moment they have intercourse withj that horizon. Sorry, but as much as Alexander Hislop makes you realize connections with Nimrod, he totally rips these astral observations related to Nimrod and makes them a personal marriage to his mother, or eating his kids, and all sorts of claims of false worship that didnt actually happen. Just because it is a world fact that we must sacrifice our heart doesnt mean the Aztec are the only ones who took it wrong, but nor does it mean everyone other than Christians or Jews also took it wrong too.
In metaphor, you have to respect true people who help asist with mnemonics without making it real as they did walking away from the thought that listeners usually devour their teachers, rip them to shreds, and kill them, before what they ate in knowledge becomes understood to save them. (Jews finding it shocking you must eat flesh and drink blood. The excuse today that Jesus meant communion is why they dont see that they still send children out to other countries claiming that when they die in war we live and survive in freedom by that flesh we devoures in the war sacrifice.)

Abram doesnt argue with God whether an explosion and eruption will destroy a city of buildings or not, as if God will choose to do it or not by Abram who is so good he begs or confronts God. Jesus never did this, he prayed hard all day his prediction would be right even if that prediction was that of his being able to do a miracle. Abram was not arguing for buildings and streets, he was arguing for lives. And this didnt mean God decides to make the prediction false and not happen. It means how do we defiwhone God by who survives. The answer was that even though the never listens to the moral sof Lot, or his predictions (passed on to him by two men /messengers), that if we have proper view of God the whole city would be evacuated spared by following ten men out of their city before it happens. This is exactly the same today. The deaths are merely because they don't heed the belief and the solution because of who is leading that belief. I am John and hated, and there is a Jesus hated more. Not liking moral stands is why they won't listen to scientific stands especially if they feel it is religious or that you were never scientific before this, or you dare to have such a fatal all-encompassing prediction.

As far as Canaan goes, it was he who saw the nakedness of Noah if you mean touching him, and it was Ham who saw it if you mean laughed and said nah it is nothing. Noah was drunk. the gods Bacchus (wine) or Pan (Capricorn goat or or 30-year cycle of Satyrn goat from Flood-year) whether being Noah or Nimrod or any man is depicted with an erection while drunk, being an idol it is eternal according to some scholars; but it clearly relates to being drunk alone in your tent naked and getting caught seen. As such then, nobody knows whether Canaan was little boy of 5 looking at this thing he  touched, or whether he was 15 and the first gay boy, the point is Ham felt it could be ignored and passed and laughed off without going into sexual activity we know Sodom went into 450 years aftewr the Flood. For this Noah started a hate between the two families in which everyone thought eventually the corrupted family of Canaan would fall on its own without being killed off, and the winners or survivors are all the other families. Well, during Hyksos migration at Peleg's death fleeing Ur's suicide, the journey of Shem encouraged to be in the land of the wicked amongst them so that it is yours when they all die. Abram joined that idea 87 years later at 75. But the idea was curved by Narmer (2020 BC) ten years after Shem's foundation of Salem by creating the Pharaoh in year 350. As a house of kings it merged the two families in the claim Noah is now dead, we dont need to carry on what he has caused by this.
So Shemites and Hamites were merged in Egypt as a house of elders or kings, but denying the eventual fact the president or presiding chairman or king would eventually be absolute power as in first king of 11th dynasty 1986 BC, and the height of glory starting with first king 12th dynasty in 1943 BC whom Abram journeyed a visit to. (1991-1943 BC is the 48 years of king Shulgi of Ur whose 6th year saw the Pharaoh of 1986 BC as abolute ruler); Abram built his 2nd home and married his 17-year old sister in Harran when he was 27 in 1991 BC, she left Harran to live with Abram in Ur, as her niece Rebecca left Harran to marry Issac their son in Canaan. (My new thought here never seen before is her birth in Harran and possible dwelling her 17 years there before meeting Abram her half-brother.) After all, with Haran drafted to build Nineveh at 18 in 2060 BC giving him reasonn to build his Harran up there at 30 in 2048 BC, and then called to Ur  by grandpa Nahor for suicide in 2029 BC, it is easy to see how Abram was born in the city of Ur in 2018 BC as his birth, as Haran was in Ur in 2078 BC. And yet Terah have reason to go up during 2009 BC so that Sarai is born in Harran in 2008 BC and raised there 17 years.
 THe 2009 BC is the building of Marduk Street for Mars in Babel, and in competition Ur Nammu started total kingship in Ur again. Abram is known to be 9 in the year of Marduk's 52-year calendar, and argument over it's math and astronomy is known as a young child making issue of astronomy with priests. He is known also to be 10, and as with Jupiter as 12.
If Terah had issues here regarding Haran's city family without a father for 20 years (2029-2009 BC) he may very well have gone up there and married a woman while there. And the daughter born, Abram came to love at 17 when he at 27 went there, so that he built a home for her there, but brought her back to Ur. This is why the whole world argues whether he lived in Harran or not and how long and why and when etc in relationship to the 12th dynasty starting and which king of Ur ruled.