1 million ethiopians killed by israelites. Youll have to post some scripture on that one Putin because I don't recall an israelite expedition into Africa. Then again I don't know every wrinkle of the bible so i could be surprised. But until then I call bull shit.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/14.html#9

14:9 And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah.
14:10 Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.
14:11 And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let no man prevail against thee.
14:12 So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (14:12) "So the LORD smote the Ethiopians."
(14:13) "The Ethiopians were ... destroyed before the Lord."

(14:14) "They smote all the cities round about Gerar; for the fear of the LORD came upon them: and they spoiled all the cities."

14:13 And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the LORD, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.
14:14 And they smote all the cities round about Gerar; for the fear of the LORD came upon them: and they spoiled all the cities; for there was exceeding much spoil in them.
14:15 They smote also the tents of cattle, and carried away sheep and camels in abundance, and returned to Jerusalem.

"I don't recall an israelite expedition into Africa."

Well, Egypt being IN Africa...

40 years of wandering out of there, on foot, they'd have spent some time in Africa, as they'd have been IN Africa...

So, while Putin and I are usually at odds, I think he has a charge here and, naturally, you're being perfectly evasive.

What a surprise, Santa ignorant about the crimes of the bible but yet I'm sure he'll claim the mantle of expertise with this one, too.

...Or Putin's superior knowledge of the Bible than me as cited above, that works too...

SC I'm afraid I still don't follow you. It seems that you aren't answering the same question. Lets try a different approach:

God told the Israelites to, "wipe out some group of people." The Israelites indeed did as instructed and wiped out some group of people. Is this, or is this not, Genocide, in your viewpoint?

And that Amalekite story, people neglect to mention that God was pissed at Samuel for not killing enough. After all, Samuel spared Agag and some animals.

The command was explicit:

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

How was that a command to only kill "some" of the Amalekites?

It later says Samuel did the following:

"And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. "

*All of the people*.

I know...damn, leaving that one king alive and a few animals was just horrendous!

Not the thousands of thousands of innocent women and children brutally slaughtered...

Nope, THAT was perfectly kosher!

16 “As for the towns of these peoples, which Adonai your God is giving you as your inheritance, you are not to allow anything that breathes to live. 17 Rather you must destroy them completely — the Hitti, the Emori, the Kena‘ani, the P’rizi, the Hivi and the Y’vusi — as Adonai your God has ordered you; 18 so that they won’t teach you to follow their abominable practices, which they do for their gods, thus causing you to sin against Adonai your God.

Justified, I'm sure. Nothing at all to do with a land grab. Nope.

The above is from 20 Deuteronomy 16-18.

"God told the Israelites to, "wipe out some group of people." The Israelites indeed did as instructed and wiped out some group of people. Is this, or is this not, Genocide, in your viewpoint? "

YJ please follow along, do not stop reading and cut out because you think for whatever reason I am not answering the question. I assure you I am answering the question, but its interpreting the text.

YJ, the question is how the text should be interpreted, the bible has been translated several times, meanings have been lost as well. Things that seem to be straight forward are not

My point is that the straightforward interpretation, that god wanted the jews to commit genocide, does not make sense

Why doesnt it make sense?

Because the way the story progresses God tells the Israelites to kill everyone and everything.

Israelites go out and according to God through his prophet samuel the Kill EVERYONE besides the Amalakite king

Samuel shames the Israelite King for not killing the Amalakite King,so the Israelite King kills the Amalakite king, meaning that EVERYONE that god wanted dead is dead.

So if God wanted all Amalakites dead, and the Israelites obliged. Why the fuck are they walking around in large numbers in later stories in the bible?

So to directly answer your question

"God told the Israelites to, "wipe out some group of people." The Israelites indeed did as instructed and wiped out some group of people. Is this, or is this not, Genocide, in your viewpoint? "

If God wanted them to wipe out the entire population of Amalakites, or the vast majority perhaps, but that is far from clear in the story.

A RECAP:

Omnipresent god wants a group (a royal family, a city, a subtribe perhaps) dead

The Israelites were successful

Yet the Cultural group, the Amalakites continued to exist in large numbers afterward

So the omnipresent god mut have had no intention of wiping them all out or the bible wouldn't have said the israelites were successful, because the account of the bible itself says amalakites survived and survived in large numbers

Obviously only some subset of amalakites were killed.

Its logical IF you take the bible on its own terms which Obi demands.

And to dumb and dumberer up there. The Ethiopian 1 million was an invasion of Israel by an Egyptian/Ethiopian Army of supposedly 1 million, the army was defeated, I don't see any crimes there. And no I did not no this before hand. I lose track of biblical history after Solomon admittedly. And unlike some I am not afraid to admit my deficiencies.

*know this before hand, my spelling and grammar are more awful than usual today

Amalekites were a nomadic, decentralized group that lived across a very large area. This idea you're clinging to you, that because the Israelites weren't capable of wiping them all out that somehow means the slaughter of infants and pregnant women isn't genocide is utter bullshit. God in Exodus 17 says he wants to wage war against the Amalekites in every generation. So God also had the Israelites massacre them on Mount Seir.

After the defeat of the Ethiopians the Israelites pursued and utterly destroyed. But as expected you defend every massacre in the Bible.

OK, so, according to you, because God had no intention of wiping a vast majority of them out, it was not Genocide.

Thank you for confirming you have no idea what Genocide means - seriously, look it up before you waste everybody's time again.

Perhaps, after you do look it up, you may wish to re-evaluate some of what you've been claiming here.

My sympathies in this debate are most definitely with Obi he is asking the questions, generally in a polite way, that need to be asked.

Isn't it funny, however, the knots some people tie themselves into? Here we have a self-proclaimed atheist, who happens to also to be a self-proclaimed historian, analysing the Bible as if it were a primary source and then throwing in a hypothetical argument, just in case, to cover his back. He needs to take his head out of his own arse.
My sympathies in this debate are most definitely with Obi, he is asking the questions that need to be asked.

"After the defeat of the Ethiopians the Israelites pursued and utterly destroyed. But as expected you defend every massacre in the Bible. "

I suppose they should have called in the Bronze age UN to arrange a cease fire.

So silly


"OK, so, according to you, because God had no intention of wiping a vast majority of them out, it was not Genocide.

Thank you for confirming you have no idea what Genocide means - seriously, look it up before you waste everybody's time again.

Perhaps, after you do look it up, you may wish to re-evaluate some of what you've been claiming here. "

"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

So I assume ANY war in the Bronze age which featured tribes of one ethnicity systematically killing the tribe of another ethnicity were Genocides, in which case genocide loses any fucking semblance of meaning. Perhaps you should reconsider.

"I suppose they should have called in the Bronze age UN to arrange a cease fire.

So silly"

So the only way to stop a war is to annihilate the entire population. But that's not genocide, that's just military necessity. As is taking everything they have, including women as sex slaves, as spoils. Got it.

"self-proclaimed historian"

Actually my pay-check proclaims me as a historian. But thanks for the effort

"nalysing the Bible as if it were a primary source and then throwing in a hypothetical argument, just in case, to cover his back."

I am playing the gam on Obis terms, I think its all bullshit anyway. I hav said several times that I think the whole story is a justification of the Israelites later defeat at the hand of the philistines.

"Genocides, in which case genocide loses any fucking semblance of meaning. Perhaps you should reconsider."

Whereas your definition narrows genocide to mean extinction and extinction only, which somehow gives genocide great meaning because absolutely nothing qualifies.

"So the only way to stop a war is to annihilate the entire population. But that's not genocide, that's just military necessity. As is taking everything they have, including women as sex slaves, as spoils. Got it. "

They didn't annihilate the entire population, They chased the army to a town in Israel/ Philistia and they wiped it out. The war never touched Ethiopia

"Whereas your definition narrows genocide to mean extinction and extinction only, which somehow gives genocide great meaning because absolutely nothing qualifies. "

My definition of Genocide requires the indended destruction of an entire ethnicity of people which from clues within the text I do not believe was ever intended. If you all read you would understand why I believe that.

The actual text says to destroy Amalek and kill its people entirely. You're midrashing this nonsense that because God is all powerful the fact that not all Amalekites are dead is proof he didn't intend to kill them. The fact that the Israelites continued to massacre Amalekites after this massacre belies that bullshit claim.

"So I assume ANY war in the Bronze age which featured tribes of one ethnicity systematically killing the tribe of another ethnicity were Genocides."

CLAP CLAP CLAP Yes! You get it now!

"in which case genocide loses any fucking semblance of meaning."

Wait a second, are you saying that because other cultures in the same period committed Genocide this somehow lessens the culpability of the Bible for doing so? I'm pretty sure there's a name for that, SC, what was it again?



@Fullhamish lol I thought you were talking about me :P

"My definition of Genocide,"

Oh, sweet, I can just redefine commonly understood words in the middle of an argument to suit my own needs? Handy, that. I'll be sure to take advantage

@ yellowjacket, of course not. You, like Obi, are interested in having a discussion my friend.

...I'd say something, but Putin and YJ are doing a better job replacing me here after I've already sounded off on tens of dozens of posts vs. SC about this... :)

+1s abound