Capital Punishment Upon the Canaanites

Originally posted by FMF

Perhaps there is an explanation as to why the Hebrew God figure didn't just reveal Himself to the Canaanites, declare Mosaic Law, and deem them to be a Chosen People too ~ instead of telling the Hebrews to murder them all and take their land.

The evidence for God revealing something of Himself to the conquered people exists.

IE. Balaam was a Gentile prophet. He was not of Israel (Numbers 22:1-40) .

Before him, Melchisedec priest of the Most High God, appears as a non-Israelite man of God (Genesis 14:18-20)

Jethro the priest of Mideon, the father-in-law of Moses appears as a non-Israelite man of God.

I don't see why just because the Old Testament didn't specifically mention other godly people, that there were none among the Gentiles. Wise men or ethical people must have had no lasting influence in the decline.

Rehab tells the Israelite spies in Jericho that the people of the city realized that the true God was with the Hebrews.

" And she said to the men, I know that Jehovah has given you the land, and that the dread of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt before you.

For we have heard how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordon, to Sihon and to Og, whom you utterly destroyed.

When we heard, our hearts melted; and there no longer remained any spirit in any man because of you; for Jehovah your God, He is God in heaven above and upon earth beneath." (Joshua 2:9-11)

These people knew something. And they knew judgment was coming. And we see that God had the Hebrew "army of Jehovah" circle the city once a day for seven days. And on the seventh day six more times before attacking.

It seems to me a one final opportunity for the fearful to escape and disperse.

God had told Abraham back in Genesis 15:16 that God would wait another 400 years before bringing into Canaan the severest judgment because as bad as the people were they had not reach rock bottom yet.

"And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Gen. 15:16)

It is reasonable to me that God provided a witness to their wrong doing in some manner.

Job was not a Isrealite yet had wisdom of God and His ways. So also did the three friends represent world renown wise men who were non-Israelite.

Paul on Mars Hill said God did not leave Himself altogether without a witness to the Gentile nations (Acts 14:17). So I have no good reason to think something informed the consciences of the Canaanites that they were sinning.

In fact, one of the points the writer of Genesis seems to want to convey is that Abraham found some of the people in the land as of noble and moral. In another 400 years though downward degradation would call for judgment. This is seen in the two accounts of Abraham trying to pass off his wife as his sister.

God gave them the 400 years and then another 40 years plus before Joshua entered first to disperse the centers of sin and then to execute the hardest of the hard who did not disperse in fear.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You simply have no sense of space, place or history.
You're the petulant child infuriated, standing defiantly pointing your blistered finger at your parent who just moments before warned you not to touch the hot stove.

Still no proper response to what I posted. You should know by now that offering ~ instead ~ only emotional/sneering outbursts gets you nowhere, except perhaps for whatever message board kicks it gives you.

Originally posted by sonship
It is reasonable to me that God provided a witness to their wrong doing in some manner.

Where is the information about this "manner"?

So I have no good reason to think something informed the consciences of the Canaanites that they were sinning.

You "having no good reason to think something" is not evidence of anything other than of what your thoughts are.

Originally posted by FMF

You "having no good reason to think something" is not evidence of anything other than of what your thoughts are.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I presented more evidence of what I think than your typical general grumpy accusation did of what you think.

Perhaps there is an explanation as to why the Hebrew God figure didn't just reveal Himself to the Canaanites, declare Mosaic Law, and deem them to be a Chosen People too ~ instead of telling the Hebrews to murder them all and take their land.

I gave evidence that there's reason that He did reveal Himself.
Not that you'd care.

instead of telling the Hebrews to murder them all and take their land.

God ,makes the point that the land is HIS. See Deut. 11:12.
As the whole earth is His earth Canaan, the land flowing with milk and honey, was really His land.

God speaks of the expulsion of the sinful people of His land (whether Canaanites OR Israelites ) as the land itself vomiting out the sinful inhabitants.

"Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have defiled themselves,

Because the land has become defiled, I visited its iniquity upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." (Lev. 18:24,25)

Originally posted by sonship
I gave evidence that there's reason that He did reveal Himself.

That you claim "It is reasonable to [you]" that He did reveal Himself is not "evidence" that He did. That you claim that "[You] don't see why just because the Old Testament didn't specifically mention" such revelation happening doesn't mean it didn't happen, is not "evidence" that it did. You claiming that you "[have] no good reason to think" that He didn't do something to reveal Himself is not "evidence" of anything at all.

Originally posted by FMF
That you claim "It is reasonable to [you]" that He did reveal Himself is not "evidence" that He did. That you claim that "[You] don't see why just because the Old Testament didn't specifically mention" such revelation happening doesn't mean it didn't happen, is not "evidence" that it did. You claiming that you "[have] no good reason to think" that He didn't do something to reveal Himself is not "evidence" of anything at all.

The whole paragraph makes little sense. I suppose it just means that you don't care what the Bible teaches.

Duh.

Originally posted by sonship
God ,makes the point that the land is HIS

The Hebrews' God figure you mean ~ those who carried out the genocide and then occupied the land? Them? It was all written up in their literature, right?

Originally posted by sonship
The whole paragraph makes little sense. I suppose it just means that you don't care what the Bible teaches.

Duh.

The point is that your opinions/speculations, and assertions of what seems "reasonable" to you, do not constitute "evidence". Where does the Bible teach that the Hebrew God figure revealed Himself to the Canaanites and/or declared Mosaic Law before the Hebrews annihilated them? Without a revelation like the one I'm talking about, your rationalization of the genocide doesn't make any moral sense.

Originally posted by FMF

Balaam a Gentile prophet.
Jethro a priest of Mideon.
Melchesidek priest of the Most High God.

And the other things I mentioned are evidence that to the Gentiles God did reveal something of Himself.

What I mentioned about the reaction of the city Jericho is evidence that they knew enough that God's judgment was coming.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]Balaam a Gentile prophet.
Jethro a priest of Mideon.
Melchesidek priest of the Most High God.

And the other things I mentioned are evidence that to the Gentiles God did reveal something of Himself.

What I mentioned about the reaction of the city Jericho is evidence that they knew enough that God's judgment was coming.[/b]

Had the Hebrew God figure imposed Mosaic Law - or some equivalent - on the the Canaanites prior to the Hebrews' genocide against them? If the Hebrew God figure had revealed Himself to the Canaanites too, does that mean they were "Chosen People" too?

Originally posted by sonship
What I mentioned about the reaction of the city Jericho is evidence that they knew enough that God's judgment was coming.

But who wrote about the "the reaction of the city Jericho" and whose God (and judgment) was being written about?

Originally posted by FMF
But who wrote about the "the reaction of the city Jericho" and whose God (and judgment) was being written about?

The implication of the question is that an Israelite writer by definition COULD NOT be telling the unbiased truth.

I don't think that has to follow.

And I don't think many of the things written by writers of the Hebrew Bible will bear out that pro-Israel biased made it impossible for them to be objective.

Originally posted by sonship
The implication of the question is that an Israelite writer by definition COULD NOT be telling the unbiased truth.

How were Hebrews able to know about what the non-Hebrew population of Jericho "knew" about the Hebrew God figure?

Originally posted by FMF
How were Hebrews able to know about what the non-Hebrew population of Jericho "knew" about the Hebrew God figure?

Rehab the prostitute of Jericho told the Hebrew spies what was the talk around the city.