Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhere is this corroborated by anyone who is not a Hebrew seeking to sanctify the genocide through a self-serving text written after the event? On what basis do you assert that [1] "They were told to annihilate a group" by a supernatural being? [2] "It was accurately described"?
No, it wasn't a lie.
They were told to annihilate a group, and they did. But they actually failed in the task for the Moabites or Ammonites. I am not sure which it was or the details of it, but yeah...
The point stands: they were ordered to wipe out their enemy and they did so. It was accurately described.
Originally posted by @fmfGeez, I don't know. I'd have to pull out Finklestein or someone just to find sources on this...
Where is this corroborated by anyone who is not a Hebrew seeking to sanctify the genocide through a self-serving text written after the event? On what basis do you assert that [1] "They were told to annihilate a group" by a supernatural being? [2] "It was accurately described"?
I was actually wrong. It was the Amalekites who were commanded to be destroyed. There is no reference to them outside of the Bible, apparently, and the name is general meaning fo those who dwell in the valley, which can basically describe anyone from the Cnaanite area as the Hebrews were hill dwellers.
Moabites & Ammonites have other testaments abotu who they are, particularly Moabites, attested to by both an ancient Egyptian stele and some other foreign chronicles.
Jebusites may even be attested to in some other ancient near eastern texts outside of the Biblical record, and they are also of itnerest because the Jebusites actually represnet a people integrated into the Israelite community.
Did you know many scholars int he 19th and 20th century laughed at the Bible because they believed these important Hittites didn't exist and there was no evidence? Now no one denies the importance sof the Hittites. On-going archeology may or may not uncover evidence of Amelekites, and, regardless, the Hebrew record has been proven to be accurate so often that it should be regarded as a great historical text.
I'd regard it as a perfect historical text.
Obviously, the only basis on which I have that the Hebrews were commanded by God were HEbrew sources.
There weren't exactly a group of contemporary journalists and sociologists fastidiously recording details about the HEbrews on stone.
As you well know, when we go back into history we have to rely on simply what remains. Demanding extensive evidence for things in the 12th century BC and secondary corroboration for local political events is a very, very high bar. If it isn't met, it doesn't actually signify that much.
Asking to find another source that the Hebrews consulted God in the 12th century BC or so... Please. Don't be silly. Of course no one can produce that.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleOK, I understand.
I'd regard it as a perfect historical text.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYes, I realize it's a bit "silly". That's the point, really. It's about as silly as asserting that it's "a perfect historical text" documenting supernatural instructions to kill men, women and children and take their land. But I get exactly where you are coming from. So it's OK.
Asking to find another source that the Hebrews consulted God in the 12th century BC or so... Please. Don't be silly. Of course no one can produce that.
I'd also say... none of this is really silly.
It's recorded in very important historical annals that accurately documented the Hittites before there was even proof of it. The texts also accurately described their own defeats of their own cities, somethign no other civilization in the neighborhood did at all (and perhaps no one had yet done in the world). Other aspects that were doubted were also subsequently vindicated, e.g., Jerusalem really was a walled city in the 11th century BC with a very substantail wall, something which Finklestein doubted. Finklestein is important ,of course, because he captured the imaginations of the skeptic communities in the early 2000s and shifted the entire timeline of the Hebrew development, casting the days of Solomon & King David in doubt and reducing them to mere myth because of these sorts of details like Jerusalem being some minor, inconsequential town of no note.
Really, the Bible is astonishingly accurate. It's unprecedented. It'd take the Greeks centuries more to begin describing history in similar terms and even treating it as a topic that you should at least try to be factually accurate about.
They say that they communed with God, and were commanded by God. And the Jewish people were preserved against all odds, not just unto the brith of Christ, but far beyond that. The only other ethnic groups in the Old Testament still around are the Egyptians, Persians, and Arabs. The Arabs were a very late apparence, not showing up until Nehemiah). The Egyptians and Persians exist still, under extremely different religions, while there are still Jews who believe in the same religion as their ancestors which dates back thousands & thousands of years. Even if you accept the hypothesis that it was only Ezra... it'd still be a number like 2600. This would really make it the longest religion in existence without significant reformation.
It's a pretty amazing situation, actually.
Which is exactly why we talk about it and atheists are obsessed with it.
You know about the way you phrase it... Detractors want to emphasize that aspect of it and not contextualize the whole story or try to 'enter' the story from the perspective of the Hebrews. That's fine. I don't mind.
But it is worth noting that the fate reserved for Amelekites was rather unique. Non-Hebrew groups like the Jebusites eventually were even incorporated into the Hebrew body with Jebusites like Zadok even maintaining his role as a Priest.
There is a great diversity of events and stories, and how things exactly unfolded, and their precise context and nuances, cannot necessarily be known well.
I do not feel bothered by these things.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleObsessed?
Which is exactly why we talk about it and atheists are obsessed with it.
Are you trying to conjure up some kind of personal weakness to explain away the impudence of dissent again? 😉
No, I think it accurately describes the countless websites, YouTube channels, etc., that have been based around atheism.
I bet the average Westerner between the ages of 15 and 50 can name more atheist perosnalities than Christian ones. How quickly the names like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens fill people's minds while very public and erudite Christians like Fr. Mitch Pacwa are unknown.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleThey're of no interest to me. I don't even watch all the ones that apathist posts - not because I have any reason to think apathist cannot choose good clips to watch - but just because I am not interested.
No, I think it accurately describes the countless websites, YouTube channels, etc., that have been based around atheism.
I like Sam Harris talking about other stuff. I listen to his podcast fairly often. I can't remember him doing an "atheism" one for months [edit: I just looked: last one was 20th November - I skipped it as it had Richard Dawkins and some other atheist, which seemed a bit dull really; there was one about his 'atheism' as it relates to Islam on 1th June].
I listen to Alex Jones a couple of times a week for a half an hour or so. He is a very committed Christian and rails against many of the things you rail against. You'd fit in as a guest on his show. Do you realize that?
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIs it "extraordinarily unique"? Is it really? You are claiming that no other group or tribe or nation or historian of any other people chronicling the story of their collective history - down through human history - has ever written about the defeats those people suffered, only the Hebrews did this? Someone told you this and you believed it? [bump]
It is quite relevant in the sense that the Hebrews actually recorded both their victories and their humiliating defeats. This is extraordinarily unique. Other societies tended to not do anything like that at all.
Originally posted by @fmfThe full point would be that the Hebrews are unique because they record a history stained in tragedy, defeat, and placing the blame on themselves from the start.
Is it "extraordinarily unique"? Is it really? You are claiming that no other group or tribe or nation or historian of any other people chronicling the story of their collective history - down through human history - has ever written about the defeats those people suffered, only the Hebrews did this? Someone told you this and you believed it? [bump]
This was never done until modern times.
They say that history was born with Herodotus for a reason -- he acutally tried to record objective truth, as opposed to using history as a convenient tool of propaganda.
You know what I mean?
BTW>.. I also like podcasts... and I do listen to like, Stefan Molyneaux, who is a friend of Alex Jones. I also watch the occasional Paul Joseph Watson vid. But I no longer seek them out.