Did God Order The Death Of Whole Tribes And Nations (O.T.)?

[Libs]

Not sure if I am doing this right. This is my first poll.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

This is an anonymous poll.

Yaaay, it posted!

[sunstoned]

I voted no. The OT is a collect of myths and stories from a bronze age tribe who used their god as an excuse to commit genocide, rape and murder. No, I do not believe the earth was covered with water, or that all languages were confounded in a day. Nor to I buy into the silly creation myth of a talking snake and an apple. If the text of the OT is to be taken literally, then the god of the OT is monster. Nothing like what is taught in the NT.

[Tacenda]

This is going to get me in trouble, but I think alot of wacko stuff like donkeys talking etc. is from people ingesting wild mushrooms that happen to make one hallucinate. It's the only way I can get my head around so much of what is said in the Bible. Or some outright lying or a milder word, storytelling is done to serve a specific purpose.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[altersteve]

This is going to get me in trouble, but I think alot of wacko stuff like donkeys talking etc. is from people ingesting wild mushrooms that happen to make one, hallucinate. It's the only way I can get my head around so much of what is said in the Bible. Or some outright lying is done to serve a specific purpose.

Or it's a metaphor or reference that only the original author and his readers would have fully understood. I wouldn't call it "outright lying."

Edited July 30, 2012 by altersteve

[djholmess]

So how do you guys square off Jesus high view of the OT with your own view?

[altersteve]

So how do you guys square off Jesus high view of the OT with your own view?

Jesus had a high view of ancient Jewish scripture because it testified of Him and His Father. But I don't know if some of the Old Testament books considered scripture today were considered as such back then.

[djholmess]

Well I would disagree, I think there is enough evidence from Jesus himself that indicates that He accepted all OT books we have today.

A couple of examples:

Luke 11:50-51

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Who was the first man killed in the OT? Abel. Who was the last? Zacharias. At the time of Jesus the Jews had all the OT books that are in the King James, however they did have them in a different order. Genesis was first, hence Abel is the first man killed. Unlike our Bibles 1&2nd Chronicles was last and Zacharies was the last man killed there. So we see In Jesus statement he is recognising the extent of the accepted Jewish cannon.

Add that to other statements of his like;

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Where we see the importance of every jot and tittle

And

Matthew 19

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that HE which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 AND SAID, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

where Jesus, knowing Moses wrote Genesis, ascribes Moses words about a man leaving his father and mother to God. In Jesus view God is the author of the Jewish scriptures.

These are only a few examples but I find it very strange of people who say they are followers of Jesus yet they won't even accept His view of Gods scriptures.

Edited July 30, 2012 by djholmess

[rongo]

Jesus also referred directly to the story of Jonah in giving his sign of His resurrection. In other words, He used the story of a man being swallowed by a fish for three days as a sign and type and shadow of His three days in the tomb before being resurrected.

So, Jesus used these "fairy stories" in a literal way.

[thesometimesaint]

The Old Testament was not fixed as Christians have it today until long after the death of Jesus.

[djholmess]

The Old Testament was not fixed as Christians have it today until long after the death of Jesus.

Evidence?

[Buckeye]

I voted no because of my belief in the BOM. Just like the Bible, the BOM speaks of an old testament people under the law of moses. Just like the Bible, the BOM speaks of regional armed conflicts between the covenant people and apostates. But unlike the Bible, the BOM is voide of any command from God to wipe out the apostates. Violence in the BOM is only allowed for self-preservation. The wicked destroy the wicked.

Because the BOM is more reliable scripture than the Bible (see President Benson), I trust the BOM's account more than the Bible's. This doesn't mean I'm 100% sure that the commands found in the Old Testament to kill women and children are false, just that I feel no compulsion to defend those verses as scripture. Thank God for the restoration of the gospel.

[KevinG]

...and your little goat too.

[pmccombs1]

I voted no. The OT is a collect of myths and stories from a bronze age tribe who used their god as an excuse to commit genocide, rape and murder. No, I do not believe the earth was covered with water, or that all languages were confounded in a day. Nor to I buy into the silly creation myth of a talking snake and an apple. If the text of the OT is to be taken literally, then the god of the OT is monster. Nothing like what is taught in the NT.

I largely agree with the "myth" part. While you seem to admit the OT is a collectin of myths, it appears that you make an exception when it comes to the killing. That stuff you seem to think was legitimate, which I suppose demonstrates a sort of bias. I suspect those killing stories are as inflated and imaginary as the rest of it, not that there aren't seeds of truth in there. Just my opinion.

[CASteinman]

Not really clear how a vote matters to the reality of things....

[rameumptom]

I said "yes". I've studied the OT and Book of Mormon in depth over 30+ years. From a BoM point of view, would we deny that God destroyed Jerusalem? The Jaredites? The Nephites? The Book of Mormon supports Moses as a historical figure, and so we would have to consider the slaying of the first born children of Egypt, among many other plagues.

I do not think the earth had to be flooded, or the languages confused in one day, in order to believe that God was involved in genocide. The point behind the Flood isn't that the whole world was destroyed, but that a wicked people were destroyed by God (see the Book of Moses).

Since God looks at things from an eternal perspective, ending life of one person at a time, or thousands at a time, does not mean anything, when they continue forever and still have a chance to repent in the Spirit World. We think God cannot do genocide, because then he would be a mean and evil god, yet do not say such when people die of cancer, pestilence, famine, earth quakes and other natural disasters, etc.

If God has the power to form an earth, surely he has the power to end mortal death and suffering. Yet, he allows it to continue. So, the argument that God didn't do genocide anciently because the OT is all a myth, holds no water for what happens today in the world. God DOES allow genocide and other tragedies, if it moves forth his purposes.

[treehugger]

Not really clear how a vote matters to the reality of things....

Does it have too matter?

----------------------------------------

I beleive it was Samuel the Prophet who used his own sword to kill the last person a particular people, who the israelites were told to destroy.

[wenglund]

The fascinating thing about these kinds of philosophical questions/traps is that they tend to hone in on the least important aspects of the Bible, the least timely to the here-and-now, the least pertinent to the intent and purpose of the scriptures, and the aspects that our puny human brains have the least capacity to correctly grasp. Yet, they are too oft given the most importance, are the most riveting to our minds today, give some of us humans more of a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority over God, and are more likely to steers us away from far more worthwhile goals, if not also most likely to stir up counterproductive contention and wreck the ships of our faith on the rocky sholes of pride.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 30, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Not sure if I am doing this right. This is my first poll.

You omitted the most important choice: Don't Care. Really it is absolutely irrelevant to us today.

[CV75]

I voted "Yes" but wouldn'y mind at all if the correct answer turns out to be "No". After all, it's just my "belief" and not a matter of abiding faith.

[treehugger]

1 Samuel 15

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which a Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly a destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***....

32 ¶Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

[wenglund]

1 Samuel 15

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which a Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly a destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***....

32 ¶Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

I appreciate you underscoring my point. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[longview]

Jesus also referred directly to the story of Jonah in giving his sign of His resurrection. In other words, He used the story of a man being swallowed by a fish for three days as a sign and type and shadow of His three days in the tomb before being resurrected.

So, Jesus used these "fairy stories" in a literal way.

Many years ago I was very interested to read of an actual person being swallowed and surviving in the belly of a whale.

God knows the end from the beginning. He can easily arrange for any creature to be anywhere and to carry out His gracious requests.

Jonah was a real person. His experiences did happen. O ye of little faith . . .

[longview]

I voted no because of my belief in the BOM. Just like the Bible, the BOM speaks of an old testament people under the law of moses. Just like the Bible, the BOM speaks of regional armed conflicts between the covenant people and apostates. But unlike the Bible, the BOM is voide of any command from God to wipe out the apostates. Violence in the BOM is only allowed for self-preservation. The wicked destroy the wicked.

Because the BOM is more reliable scripture than the Bible (see President Benson), I trust the BOM's account more than the Bible's. This doesn't mean I'm 100% sure that the commands found in the Old Testament to kill women and children are false, just that I feel no compulsion to defend those verses as scripture. Thank God for the restoration of the gospel.

It is stated several times in the OT that "when the cup of iniquity is full" then God will wreak destruction on the entire nation. This included the Amorites, Perrizites, Sodom and Gomorrah, and EVEN the northern tribes of Israel and then the southern kingdom of Judah . . .

[KevinG]

I find that ambergrising!