Can we reconcile the Canaanite conquest with a God of love? Paul Copan vs Randal Rauser 

Absolutely fascinating discussion. One of the very best broadcasts I’ve heard. I thought Randall was particularly convincing. He seemed to deal with the issues more directly and clearly.

For those struggling with God’s judgement, chapter 25 entitled “Holy War” of Dr. Heiser’s Unseen Realm could possibly help reconcile this. It made much more sense to me when I took a closer look as to what is going on here.

Riveting conversation. Both made persuading cases, which is sorely needed; too much content out there is one-sided or straw manning another side's position, so it's very refreshing to have different views brought out in conversation by intellectual equals, in a respectful and honest way. Well done.

Randall won this, I think - at about @1:10:00 when Copan refused to answer yet again in an honest manner. Let me help Mr. Copan - the correct, honest answer is "yes, civilians were deliberately targeted".

Randal Rauser is the most honest Christian apologist I know. Whether dealing with the atrocities of Yahweh or the horrors of Ravi Zacharias, he stands alone. Among apologists who will dare to acknowledge how truly difficult these questions are. Somehow he maintains his faith through it all. But I lost my faith upon reading Copan’s Moral Monster book back in 2008 or so. From there, Turek, JW Wallace, Koukl, Craig McDowell, and other have increasingly disappointed me with their tendency to try gloss over it dodge harsh realities of the faith. Worse, they have constantly made claims about atheists and atheism that are demonstrably false and disparaging. Meanwhile, Rauser once again keeps his integrity by engaging in honest, intelligent, and fair conversations with atheists on his blog and in his books like “Is the Atheist My Neighbor?” and “A Christian and an Atheist Go into a Bar.” Evangelical apologists would do well to related the gospel (and fruits of the spirit) as Rauser understands it.

Great and thought provoking discussion.

This channel is unbelievably thought provoking! Thank you for this content!

Randall seems a little too stuck on the definition of genocide including dismantling a culture. If a culture practiced very evil things as part of their religious heritage, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with dismanteling those aspects of the culture, regardless of whether we could technically call it genocide or not.

Michael Heiser's take is a better approach in Unseen Realm, chapter "Holy War"... that the Joshua wars are directed to annihilation of the giants in Canaan.

Two things require to be brought into consideration: 1) God is daily causing men, women and children to suffer sickness and death as a judgement against human sin, and 2) Death is not the end of a person's existence. God has provided an after-life. Therefore, the whole question can not be considered only in terms of the harm suffered by person in this life as the ultimate evil.

Dr Michael Heiser links the Canaanite conquest with the Sons of God in Genesis 6.

I think both guys did a good job and am still not totally convinced of either viewpoint. However, I do find and appreciate that Paul’s view seems more nuanced. Randall’s thesis that we should be guided first and foremost by our most immediate moral intuitions seems too simplistic of a resolution for my liking. Our moral intuitions need to be heavily considered most certainly but I think our problem more likely lies in a lack of knowledge or understanding of the context concerning these passages.

Love these guys! Can’t wait to hear the discussion

50:23 WOAH!! He went there! Am impressed with the honesty of this theologian.

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things:(Leviticus 18) for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." Lev 18:24

Pity that there are not thousands more views of such an important debate such as this.

The problem with 'moral intuition' is that it is by definition dependant on the particular time and culture in which the individual lives. I would suggest such intuition in our culture today would be quite different for people's intuition 2 or 3000 years ago in a Roman, Greek or other culture. Because it is so relative, it is hardly a good measuring stick to use to judge God's possible actions in any specific circumstances.

Daily Verse "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love." -1 John 4:7-8

Such difficult stuff. I have to take comfort in the fact Jesus Christ himself would have known about the wiping out of the Canaanites, and would have either been able to explain it to us, or would carried the burden of it with him to the cross. Perhaps he suffered by the fact of it, the mystery of it, much more than we do.

Randal does very well here. Copan is hugely frustrating - he elongates answers, I think to avoid difficult questions he knows he is on shaky ground with.

at 57:00, Randal actually concedes that German suppression of Nazism was a genocide. The (non-rigorous) language of genocide that Randal adopts can thus have positive application. He's using it as a boogeyman, but not all religions or ways of life should survive.

I've watched a couple of conversations with Sean McDowell and Dr. Copan. I realize he's done a lot of reading but I found myself rolling my eyes at many of his responses and I can't work out how people would take them as anything other than a weak justification for 'god's' actions in the Hebrew Bible.

I love how Copan described rape as "inherently problematic". Such a forceful condemnation.

Wasn't Saul kicked out of being king because he did not slaughter the infants and animals? Those commands were not just exaggerating.

Who uses the term genocide the way Randal does?

First of all, Rauser is essentially denying inerrancy. His position on it is basically "I don't believe in actual inerrancy but fewer people would listen to me if I denied it so I'm going to affirm 'inerrancy' in it's weakest form conceivable". It's very evident that he does not believe Joshua is the Word of God in any meaningful sense, and it seems reasonable to say that all of his skepticism towards it allegedly on other grounds is motivated by a moral issue he personally has with its contents. Conversely, his functional rejection of Joshua as inspired Scripture allows him to accurately state what the text is saying despite it going against his sensibilities (because he doesn't feel bound to it). Copan on the other hand DOES feel bound to stand by what Joshua says, but because he has similar sensibilities he wants to sanitize Joshua and make the violence in it less severe than it obviously is. Both allow themselves to be steered and ultimately blinded by their own moral sensibilities. Rauser does this much more, though he at least goes 1% of the way towards justifying his moral position. Still this is insufficient, his 'justification' boils down to "I don't like the idea, it matches this definition in some modern document of some crime I *really* don't like, it must be bad". Most strongly he does this with the accusation of genocide. I'm not defending genocide but in the modern day genocide is seen as the ultimate evil act. This is unique to modern times, frankly genocide in past times was very common, it was seen as bad but even in Scripture it is only ever given in a list of many crimes some king or nation might be accused of. Like with the accusation of murder, we always make distinction between why someone did something in determining guilt. Simply killing another person is not necessarily murder, it could be in self defense, accidental, in combat etc. As we plainly see in Scripture, God kills people and commands His servants to kill people. He even kills people who in human terms we would call innocent. But the reality is that none are innocent. The reality is that, for ALL who are disobedient against God, punishment awaits which is far worse than anything an Israelite with a spear could inflict. God is the creator of all things and the giver of all life, He can give and take that life and anything else whenever He chooses. He hates sin, and He will poor out the fullness of His wrath upon all unjustified sinners on the last day. What is a violent death to that? Many people have died violent deaths, many BELIEVERS have died violent deaths. Joshua himself was one of only two survivors from the generation that personally left Egypt, the rest were sentenced to die in the wilderness due to their lack of faith. How many infants died in the Passover? How many children in the cities of the plain died? Oh I bet that could have been "genocide" too right? God destroyed Babylon, not many of them around these days. The only Assyrians left are Christians. What Assyria did to Samaria was essentially genocide, only a remnant survived in Judah and the rest were scattered throughout the other nations or were colonized in Samaria by other peoples receiving the same treatment; and yet this was the means of God's judgement on them. If you want to tell God He isn't just, that He doesn't have the right to be merciful and patient or imminently wrathful on whoever He chooses to whatever extent He chooses, you're welcome to when you see him. Personally I don't dare, in fact I'll confess that He had every right to do the exact same to me and everyone I've ever met and that the fact that He didn't is a revelation of His incomprehensible patience, mercy, and love.

I think Randall needs to re-examine his straight out moral understanding...if a child was being sacrificed in front of him - would he just watch because he didn't want to help 'commit genocide'? Think he is thinking it incorrectly is all. Appreciate both sides though

Oddly enough, both men are facing the same challenges: reconciling their moral intuitions with Scripture. * Copan has always befuddled me. I haven't read his books, but I've listened to a number of his lectures, interviews and debates. He consistently avoids Biblical passages and proofs that are distasteful to him for which he doesn't have a good explanation. He can't bring himself to let the chips fall where they may. (If he has a good explanation in his books, I wish he'd bring it out in his lectures/interviews.) Perfect example is at roughly 59:00 and again at 1:07:00 in this interview. Randall made a pointed question to him ("Did the Israelites ever actually destroy defenseless women and children as the Bible says?") and Copan wouldn't answer the question directly, even though his assumptions necessarily bring him to that conclusion. But he won't say it. Why not? * Randall, on the other hand, runs to the NT to see a 'softer, gentler, Jesus', and then reads that "Jesus" into the OT so he can allegorize away the passages that are distasteful to his moral intuitions. In short, to get to his conclusion, he has to soft-peddle the offense of sin to a holy God. But is he right? - - - When God moves in divine wrath and judgment, God has, can, and will destroy all people in the path of His wrath, including women and children ..and even their animals. - Noah's flood drowned the whole planet (there is no possible way that women, children or animals could survive if they weren't on God's ark) - Sodom & Gomorrah (the only survivors of any kind - women, children or animals - had to be physically removed from the 5 cities in the region) - Ten Plagues affected scores of people, ultimately killing firstborn children and firstborn livestock ("every house had death") - Korah's Rebellion had women and children being swallowed up by a targeted earthquake - Jericho saw everything destroyed except Rahab and her whole household survived while Achan (who forsook the faith of Joshua for the riches of Jerich) received the exact same punishment as the occupants: He and his whole household, wife, children AND ANIMALS were destroyed. - The capture/destruction of the northern 10 tribes by the Assyrians in 722 BC (Is 10) surely involved the killing of women and children (See Sennacherib's Prism). This was the work of God (Is 10) - The capture of Judah and the destruction of the temple in 586BC by Nebuchadnezzar most definitely involved the destruction of women and children. This was the work of God (Jer 51) - The destruction of Jerusalem in 90AD is seen as divine wrath against the people of Israel as God finally "cuts off" the olive branch and grafts in the Gentiles. Do we think for one moment that women and children didn't die under General Titus' hand? - In Rev 19, as Randall points out, we see anyone/everyone opposed to God being destroyed, including men, animals and even slaves (Rev 19:17-18) On the question of whether or not women and children died under God's wrathful judgment, some of the items I've listed above are not up for interpretation. EG, even if the flood was local, if it took place, then women and children died at the hand of God. If S&G were destroyed by fire, then women and children died at the hand of God. Etc. So given God's demonstrable history of how He handles judgment with water, fire, earthquake and plagues, only one question remains: *When God judges with the sword of the Joshua, did He judge with the same moral consistency as He did when judging with water, fire, earthquake and plague, namely, including women and children in His destruction?* The text explicitly says 'yes'. - Randall needs to explain why his moral intuitions compel him to say 'no'. His friend, Jerry Shephard, is right at 1:22:19, even if that's not what he wants to hear. We are, after all, talking about a God who will throw all His enemies in hell. Surely that kind of God isn't going to suddenly go squeamish about killing said apostates. - And Copan needs to belly up to the bar and let the chips fall where they may. .02

Copan didn't seem to care how dishonest he was in this discussion.

Very excited for this dialogue!

Mr. Rauser repeatedly commits to fallacy of reading the Bible thru the lens of 2022 vs reading it in the context of the time in which it was written. The moral intuition argument is a house of cards. Bottom line: If God commanded it ( and He did) it is not subject to being questioned nor rejected based on modern hypersensitivity.

I would prefer an explanation for why God deliberately infected humanity with sin in the first place, but beggars can't be choosers.

"all the non combatants were cleared out". A man who knows nothing about ancient warfare, baggage trains and army camps.

So Copan seems to be saying that although the text clearly states something the authors are in fact engaging in hyperbole but then he criticizes others for questioning the historicity of certain events.

Great conversation and great channel.

It's always amusing when things like genocide and infanticide are being discussed in the topic of love.

Wondering if any Christians have a good answer for why Jesus didn't weigh in on Old Testament violence like genocide, infanticide, misogyny, rape, child abuse and other human rights violations. Jesus, of course, reportedly made oblique references such as his improvement on "eye for an eye" and some comments about Moses permitting certain things because the Israelites were dense. But he could have settled this debate with just a few sentences of wisdom, couldn't he? Why did he not?

After reading some of the comments on here I’m reminded of the quote, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

So God is either ok with genocidal murder or the Bible is full of hyperbole? That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence - or faith.

Oh wow I’ve always thought about getting these two together on this topic

When I listen to these Protestant podcasts most listeners in the average churchgoer probably doesn't even understand that marcion isn't called a heretic by the apostle Paul or some biblical author, Marcy and I was labeled as a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church in its early iteration. The fact of the matter is is that marcianism was the mainstream Christianity of the earliest versions of the church and if it wasn't then somebody's going to have to explain to me how will religion that's supposed to be centered around Jesus Christ in the Protestant movement itself, focuses the most on following doctrines provided by Paul, particularly the idea of works being you said being justified by faith alone, how Paul's teachings could be that integral and crucial, and yet having been introduced to canonization and being called scripture by Marcia. And the fact of the matter is in Thessalonians the oldest letter beside the book of Hebrews in the New testament, Paul says that Jesus overturned the law. Now everybody loves Matthew 5 through 7, particularly Matthew 5 where Jesus says think not that I've come to overturn the law I have not come to overturn but to prevail. The only problem there is Jesus says in Matthew 6, you have heard from them of old I for an eye but I say unto you is this not evil if somebody smite you on your left cheek then turn to them you're right, and if somebody petition you to walk one mile go with them Twain. Well wait a minute, all of levitical law is centered around the idea of eye for 9 tooth for tooth. The reason that there is a call for the extermination of the Canaanites is literally based on the idea that God is just, his Justice is surrendered around this levitical law in the Old testament. And then here's Jesus telling us that isn't what Justice is, man has no right to carry out God's Divine Justice even if it is moral atrocity. So what gives people the idea that if it was wrong in Jesus time for humans to carry out Mass slaughter in the name of God's Divine Justice that it would be fully justified to carry out God's Divine Justice A thousand years before. See the biggest problem with all of this is is that in order to believe coping and all of these Christians art defending the Old testament being an important part of our faith or whatever, they're putting the Old testament on an equivocal level to the New testament because of the idea that God is the same yesterday today and forever, but notice it's only Jesus is teaching that they have a problem with. Jesus saying a rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven in the sense that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, well they come up with the idea that there is a fake gate in Jerusalem in ancient times that didn't exist, that was called the eye of a needle and a camel had to get on his hands and knees and crawl in and everyone at the time knew this. This is complete made up hogwash, or the idea it's the most egregious and the most anti-christian, the idea that all of the beatitudes are there to tell you how to treat a fellow Christian and not just any old center. Jesus is literally a friend of sinners, a friend of tax collectors and prostitutes. We are called to be like jesus, these old testament-oriented Christians tell you that Jesus hung around those people but we're called to be righteous which they usually quote the book of Isaiah for everything. But the main problem with saying that turn the other tree get all that stuff is only supposed to apply to other Christians, completely makes no sense when you factor in love your enemies, it makes even less sense when we factor in that the parable of the Good Samaritan is literally to tell you that your neighbor isn't your fellow Christian necessarily. That your neighbor is the one who showed you Grace. But that means not to factor in external things and external labels. The modern equivalent to a Samaritan versus a Pharisee would literally be an Evangelical Christian and a Muslim. A lot of people like to say like an orthodox jew, but the reality is that an orthodox Jew has way more in common with an Evangelical Christian then an Evangelical Christian and an orthodox Muslim. Because in every way the doctrine of Samaritans is heretical. Jesus spends all this time talking about Samaritans, Christians like this Paul copan talk about the importance of Jesus fulfilling these biblical prophets from the Old testament, and the importance of the profit section of the old testament, and literally Samaritan's reject the profits. The ultimate heretics to somebody like this guy. The key detail though is that when people are slandering Marcia knights as being heretics never forget that if you believe that marcian is a heretic, you're saying that the Old testament is the only scripture. Because the big heresy of this Marcy and fellow was the idea that he was calling Paul's letters and the evangelion scripture. You also have to remember that all they mentions of marcian in those early Roman Catholic documents that are the only mentions of him,

I firmly believe that it doesn't matter at all what they talk about or what they discover, Justin will continue to display the same cheery introduction and faith in his Christian God.

Great conversation. I wish at the end they would have condensed the consequences of their interpretations.

"Friends, our first reading for this Sunday is about a battle between Israel and the Amalekites. To many of us today, this appears to be either an irrelevancy of history or an outrageous story about God sanctioning genocide. But Origen of Alexandria helps us to see that it is neither; rather, it is a story about the battle of the spiritual life. And in the soldiers, Moses, and Aaron and Hur, we see the variegated offices and functions within the Church engaged in that battle." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (10/16/2022)"

Paul's argument in summary... "Meh, it wasn't really that bad.".

Randal is the critic from within , looking for the critic from without

Wow this Paul guy is dodgy about whether the CAnaanites were genocided.

Reuven Firestone's essay 'A Brief History of Hebrew War Traditions" in the volume "Fighting Words" ( a compendium of various religions' writings on and attitudes to war) traces the "conquest" legends/concept of "holy war" ordained by god for the mythical conquest of Canaan through the disastrous uprisings against various external conquerors, to the rabbis' discarding of violent resistance after the last attempts against Rome and the revival in modern times of a divinely sanctioned war of occupation. Firestone shows that this "holy war" concept has been resurrected to justify the settlement movement - leaving us to see that the frightful old testament legends of conquest are exerting their baleful influence until today. Rather than attemting to whitewash the divine part in mythical warfare, scholars should be pointing out what archaeology is actually showing us about these legends and discarding in their turn the idea that dispossessing peoples of their homes, lives and families because a divinity has awarded these goods to a favoured group is an ideology which should have passed into history decades ago.

Need Dr Heiser to answer this one.

From an outside perspective, I have to tell you this truly sounds like a conversation attempting to validate killing in the name of god at best and genocide at worst. Not a good look Christians.

Too smart by a half as the saying goes. Thousands of years ago societal mores were vastly different. Canannites, Aztec, Inca empires were very barbaric. Slavery was the norm throughout the world. This man stands in judgement against the God of the Hebrews (Old Testament). I'm reminded of how God rebuked Job...."who are you to question my wisdom...... where were you when I laid the foundation of the world". IMHO a man may have a great Intellect (Randall) but no man walks in the spirit (as Christians are commanded) that has such a disdain for the ways of God in both testaments. The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. The old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. I could see Randall taking issues with animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. He (Randall) professes to be a Christian. I certainly would not want him teaching any church I or my loved ones attended. Randall is disparaging the character and nature of God. He keeps using the word "genocide" against women and children knowing full well Its a pejorative. Simple. Yes, God did! He has His reasons why.... every thing under the heavens is His. Job 41

Great discussion. Problem with Randals approach is that he is using the modern day definition compared to the war lord mentality that is prevalent at that time. It shows his lack of expertise in the ancient near east.

We don't need to debate this. We don't need to read books justifying the acts. The correct answer is blatantly obvious and was provided by God. The Caananites worshipped Baal. All of them. It was their culture. That culture allowed, approved and promoted the burning alive of babies as sacrifices to Baal in ovens made as statues to look as Baal. There is NO argument that can be made that there was any good in this. It was ABSOLUTELY just, moral and right for the Lord of All Truth and Good to judge, condemn and eliminate that evil from the Earth, and free those men, women and children from that cult of destruction.

Just read the book “God is a Man of war” by Fr Stephen DeYoung…best book on the subject of violence in the OT

The problem is not affirming God is permitted to judge and bring judgment. What Randal is getting at is that it is that men are doing the act and if you accept that on certain occasions infanticide is a good, then you relinquish the ability to say infanticide or abortion is intrinsically evil.

There is much I didn`t know that I have learned from Paul here. I think his position holds up well against the scholarly analysis. I think Randal has something of a point, but then he also believes the inerrancy in scripture and explains Old Testament violence therefore as moral error that we are supposed to find hidden meaning in. This presupposes that God would order acts of violence that contravene a universal moral intuition that he speaks of. Does he belive God to be all-loving or not? Does he really believe God`s real character is most revealed in the Gospels? There seems a big contradiction here.

"Friends, our Gospel blesses those who hear the word of God and observe it. In this regard, I would like to speak about the response of the Polish people to the word proclaimed by St. John Paul II. The power of the Polish Communist state, and behind that the power of the Soviet Union, is what John Paul faced at the beginning of the 1980s. But he was practiced in the art of facing down oppressive political forces, having grown up under Nazism and Communism. He spoke of God, of human rights, of the dignity of the individual-frightening at every turn, his handlers worried about diplomatic repercussions. As he spoke, the crowds got bigger and more enthusiastic. This went beyond mere Polish nationalism. At one gathering, the millions of people began to chant “We want God! We want God!” over and over for fifteen minutes. There was no controlling this power, born of the confidence that God’s love is more powerful than any of the weapons of the empires of the world, from crosses to nuclear bombs. This is, of course, why Communist officialdom tried vehemently to stop John Paul II. But there is no chaining the Word of God!" Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (10/08/2022)"

Made it to the end of the video and having listened to both parties I came away with the most parsimonious answer being 'God isn't'.

What a misconception!!! The God of the Old Testament ordered the death of many people. The God of the New Testament does not kill. The God of the New Testament rather sends most of humanity to atrocious eternal suffering.

1:00:19 that's an important distinction...

Randall has become somewhat ridiculous to listen to on this issue, especially at minute 49:45 and then again at minute 1:07:6. He tries to suggest that the Canaanites would have still suffered immoral, unjust genocide EVEN IF the ONLY thing that happened was the forced removal of their cultural and religious identity. He actually thinks that it was unjust and genocidal to tear down the Canaanite idols, shrines and cultural/religious icons to Baal and Molech. The amount of pride that it takes to read the OT and lay your 21st century judgements over God’s is too heavy a cost. Ironically, something tells me that Randall probably does not have a problem with going through the American landscape and removing confederate war monuments, flags at all vestiges of the confederacy. Lastly Copan was very strong at 1:11:25. He brings up great points to demonstrate that in the NT, God is not the passive “textual God” contrast to the OT as Randall likes to assume.

But the issue with the canaanites was essentially cultural (religious practices), which regulate their entire life and worldview.

Get the 🍿 and some 🍺. Fetch a slice of 🍕 or whatever snack you like, cause once more we're gonna watch the Christians doing mental & moral gymnastics!🥳 I love this channel!

I CANNOT I WAS never able to love the god of New Testament unless I had to think and focus on Jesus

I think the underlying question under the title question is: how much evil should we tolerate until it becomes too detrimental to surrounding societies? Or, what is evil, and how do we determine something to be widespreadingly detrimental? Because, clearly, according to Biblical narrative, Israel eventually fell into worshipping Cannaanite gods. This is a matter of human conditioning or moral decay and the facilitation of societies toward productivity while maintaining the rule of free will imo.

Dear Friends. There's something terribly wrong with this kind of discussions. Since, according to believers, the Creator of the Cosmos is alive and kicking, wouldn't it be more reasonable for believers to ask this being to explain their God's moral stance on these issues instead of endlessly trying, without any success, to figure it out on their own? Especially that this supposed being does't tell humanity how to go about getting to the truth. With kind regards.

This is silly. According to biblical scholars, the numbers of armies and the casualties as reported in the Book of Joshua are exaggerated and described with hyperbole. E.g. the fall of Jericho. Archeology established that Jericho did fall but about a century earlier than claimed and by the Egyptians, not the ancient Hebrews. Most of those conquests in Canaan were likely done by Egyptians with ancient Hebrews taking credit for them to establish their claims to the land. This is the bronze age, a thousand years before Jesus! Canaan was a war zone on the geopolitical crosshairs between various groups: Egyptians. Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites - and they were far more powerful than the ancient Hebrews. You cannot retrofit your quiche-eating Christian post-modern value judgements on a place and time that happened more than 3000 years ago, especially one described by a dubious account.

This was a great discussion. Thanks to everyone involved.

Aslan is not a tame lion.

Where are the Marcionites, Gnostics, and Deists when we need them?

Saying that the Canaanite invasion didn't include indiscriminate killing smacks of interpreting the bible so it says what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

If we have a moral inspiration by which we have to measure and interpret the bible, where does it come from? From God? Then why would God give us a moral intuition that contradicts God's very words. Not from God? Then wouldn't we be better off using that instead of the biblical texts?

Can’t wait to hear how this is rationalized. The gradual unfolding of God’s will and so on - even though God is also somehow perfect and unchanging? Or the fallback that we can’t know the mind of God and what’s really good and bad in the long run? That would be fine, but in that case, folks should stop thanking God for finding the right spouse or getting through an illness, because those may well be evil; we can’t say. Another fallback is to say God sets the moral rules and we are in no position to question them - even though few Christians even *try* to live out what Jesus commands and models, even when it makes moral sense (like donating half or all of your income to the poor and giving up all earthly things for Jesus). All that is on top of another point: If God wrote a perfect book so that everyone could see his will and greatness, wouldn’t he make it understandable to everyone - regular people and scholars alike - so no one was going to Hell over reasonable misinterpretations? To even have this debate is to desecrate God, I think.

Paul's reference to NT judgment passages are weak. God judging someone is not the same as commanding violence. NT references to God giving Israel victories are stronger evidence for his case.

This guestion only arises becouse God began to be primarily conseptulized as a loving god. God however is Good and Righteous and therefore He hates all Evil and Wickedness. We all deserve to die and only his Mercifull Grace are we allowed to live.

If only god could have written his own book, imagine a bible without ambiguity or the need for parables

40:40 my whole perception of what a palace economy is that the civilians who live in around the fortress would retreat there during an invasion. Am I completely wrong about this? Did all the farming families in the surrounding lands who pay tribute just run for the hills?

THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?” And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them. The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought. And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

War is father of us all and its a part of all ancient texts and codes including the haudenosaunee great law of peace which I believe is a foreshadowing to the prince of peace. Since Randal is a fellow Canadian and brought up First Nations a lot I will leave with some quotes by the great Canadian literary scholar Northrop Frye. "The hidden link here is that Jesus and Joshua are the same word. Hence when the virgin Mary is call her child Jesus or Joshua, the typological meaning is that the reign of the law is over, and the assualt on the promised land has begun Matthew 1:21

To call “genocide” cultural change is fallacious . I’m sorry.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? But he wants me to effectively deny the teaching of the text on the basis of my own moral judgements? No way. Randal Rauser is a wolf to be avoided.

Randal Rauser's view takes that of the liberal mainline Protestants who compartmentalize the Jesus of the Gospels as this all loving, non-judgmental figure who is opposed to the Old Testament God of wrath. This view of Jesus also bends to liberal human "moral intuition." He must forget that the Jesus of the Gospels also is attributed to saying, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me, " Luke 19:27. Jesus also is attributed the saying "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,'" in Matthew 25:41 after judging those who didn't show love by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and in prison, by sending them to everlasting Hell. Jesus also condemned anyone who affirmed that eternal life is available to anyone outside of Himself in John 14:6. He called all who came before him were "thieves and robbers" in John 10:8. The New Testament is more exclusivist and judgmental than the Old Testament. Rauser is not even a good Marcionite. He can't even claim any "inerrancy" if he is willing to admit the Old Testament is a product of its times, written by tribal men.

Anyone wanting to accuse God of wrongdoing you can do it know. I am pretty sure He reads posts about Him

God needs no defence for the things He does. Never did, never will. Live with it.

Copan was victorious and completely destroyed Rouser. Rouser was demolished and devastated. Throughly De-Rouserfied.

No offense but Copan looks like an older version of moral oral.

Do we have any tangible evidence that God commanded this, or is this just mankind invoking God to justify his actions as we've seen throughout history? Does anyone have the answer?

A ‘people group’ is one composite organic whole, somewhat in the nature of one body and many members and inevitably if one member suffers whole body suffers. ‘Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin a reproach to people’ Pr. 14:34. Even through generations such organic unity exists, so much so Israelite children once lamented ‘Our fathers sinned and are no more, but we bear their iniquities’, Lam.5:7. As shown in Amos chs 1, 2 God’s justice dealt equally with Israelites and other nations. As a faithful remnant of Israel was preserved, so was a righteous remnant from among the Gentiles. ‘In every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him’, Acts10:35.

This conversation was a great case for atheism/agnosticism ha

If God created the entire observable universe than he doesn't need men to fight for him. It's not real folks

I’m not convinced this is a Christian program I simply can’t tell so I shall avoid it

Barbarians wrote for barbarians about Barbarians. That’s the Old Testament in a nutshell.

Some hermeneutical principles I find helpful: All communication is contextual, 1. in place (culture) and 2. in time (the story of God's mission of Salvation) God's revelation is, to varying degrees, always incarnational - God is involved, not distant. God's revelation is relational ie multidimensional. God meets us where we are at, he speaks our language. Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfil the Law. God's revelation has a goal: love.

I want to agree with Paul but can’t.

Jude 1:5 “Now I want to remind you, although you came to know all these things once and for all, that Jesus saved a people out of Egypt and later destroyed those who did not believe;” Jesus is God…The 2nd Person of the Godhead. He is the Same, yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8)…the same God in the OT as in the NT. Jesus’s view of Scripture needs to be our view of Scripture…as authoritative, pointing to Him (Lk 24:44), and inspired by God.

5:20 This is really coming across as a modern day retelling of Marcion. It is like he is referring to Marcion's 2nd God (Loving and merciful father of Jebus) and, the first God: harsh, cruel law giver and creator of the universe. Interesting mental gymnastics happening here.

Love this channel. God "seems" to command (vindictive) behavior OT? The answer is yes. Theologians attempting of reconciling the god of the OT with the God NT is like swimming in crude oil upstream. Not happening. Marcion wasn't a heretic in 150AD.

i am sad to see this. i thought this was a christian channel, but both of these men are outright rejecting the authority of scripture :'(

57:15 Yes, what happened to the Nazi's was a cultural genocide. You can't use technical definitions like this then complain that they don't emotionally sit right in some cases. This is why Paul is trying to clarify the distinction between literal genocide and seeking to end a culture. I'm kind of left baffled by Randal's idea of fixating on the word genocide given Paul's view; if you're using it as a technical, anthropological term, which Randall is all too happy to do when establishing his definition, than there is nothing wrong with saying that eradicating Nazism fulfills the definition of such. So the question is not whether it was technically genocide under a specific definition that includes removing cultural precepts, but whether or not this was ethical? If the culture in question is so demonstrably evil as to be irredeemable, eg Nazism, than removing it completely is morally good. It's plausible this may have gone for the Canaanite's as well, though I tend to agree with Randal's more pragmatic arguments against Paul's attempts to radically downplay the tragedy of war as it was conducted in this context. The idea it might be more complicated is one thing, but I don't think we can make this neat argument that no civilian was harmed throughout a conquest which is just extremely unrealistic and doesn't seem consistent with all the available information in the text.

Paul "God can't make an omelette without either murdering children or lying about it" Copan