NEW VIDEO: Violence in the Bible: A Christian Justification for Biblical Genocide

In this short video, premiering soon inshaAllah, I discuss the violent verses in the Bible and the excuses Christian apologists make to justify the mass murder of non-combatants, including infants and children, at the command of Yahweh.

In a recent discussion on brother Kenny Bomer’s channel “Consider This TV”, a Christian apologist attempted to justify the killings of the Canaanite nations by linking the people to an alleged “demonic” origin. As we will see, this excuse at justifying the unjustifiable shares commonalities with historical acts of barbarism and cruelty, as seen in horrific events such as the Holocaust, the Bosnian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide.

5 thoughts on “NEW VIDEO: Violence in the Bible: A Christian Justification for Biblical Genocide

  1. mr.heathcliff

    why do crosstian apologists see “hyperbole” in the murders of the israelites but take the canaanite acts of

    child sacrifice
    incest
    beastiality

    (they portray the canaanites as filthy virmin)

    but why take literal stance and not say that the israelites enemies were hyperboling the canaanite “crimes” ?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. mr.heathcliff

      Okay, how do u obey and disobey hyperbole? “Kill the infants” hyperbole? Why put it as a question in hebrew

      in arabic UQTUL atfaal

      i guess same in hebrew

      how do u do this?

      Like

  2. mr.heathcliff

    [–]koine_linguaSecular Humanist 2 points 6 months ago*
    I’m still not sure you’re following /u/Shaddam_Corrino_IV’s point. The Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 15:3 reads

    עתה לך והכיתה את־עמלק והחרמתם את־כל־אשר־לו ולא תחמל עליו והמתה מאיש עד־אשה מעלל ועד־יונק משור ועד־שה מגמל ועד־חמו

    More literally this is

    Now go and slay Amalek, and החרמתם all that it/he has; and do not spare it/him — put to death (each) from man to woman; from infant to child; from ox to sheep, from camel to donkey.

    Saul indeed may not have accomplished this; but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t suggest a clear picture of the destruction he was meant to subject it to.

    That’s still the case even if we leave the herem verb entirely untranslated here, as I’ve done.

    ////

    [–]Anglicanpolitics123[S] 4 points 6 months ago
    I researched the Hebrew and you guys do seem to have a point on the translation of mut as “death”. Which is an interesting learning experience in itself so I will concede I didn’t know that particular translation.

    However when it comes to Herem itself it is as I mentioned. “Devoted to destruction is one way of translating it”. “Removal or set apart” is another.

    And to my original point about the idioms of the text. This to me sounds like hyperbole anyways. How can we take literally that Saul actually destroyed every man woman and child with the exception of the King and Sheep(1 Samuel 15:8) when 1 Samuel 30:1 has the Amalekites raiding against them? So I’m not convinced that these passages are meant to be read literally, intended or otherwise.

    ////

    [–]koine_linguaSecular Humanist 2 points 6 months ago*
    However when it comes to Herem itself it is as I mentioned. “Devoted to destruction is one way of translating it”. “Removal or set apart” is another.

    Also worth noting here, though, is 1 Samuel 15:8, which further specifies Saul as having “put” the Amalekites “to the herem with the edge of the sword” (החרים לפי־חרב). So here we have an explicit note of the exact actions that the herem consisted of in this instance.

    That being said, you’re correct that there are a few instances in the Hebrew Bible where a city or ethnic group is described as having been utterly destroyed, only to magically resurface later (as described in later books or later passages). And you’re certainly correct that some of this has to do with hyperbole; though there are a few more complex interpretive issues re: the relationship between these different literary traditions.

    (It’s also interesting that Saul’s failure in 1 Samuel 15 resurfaces in 1 Samuel 28:18, where it’s explicitly said that Saul’s kingship is stripped from him because he “did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek.”)

    ////
    And to my original point about the idioms of the text. This to me sounds like hyperbole anyways. How can we take literally that Saul actually destroyed every man woman and child with the exception of the King and Sheep(1 Samuel 15:8) when 1 Samuel 30:1 has the Amalekites raiding against them? So I’m not convinced that these passages are meant to be read literally, intended or otherwise.
    ////

    Even given that he didn’t literally kill every single Amalekite on the plante, why wouldn’t you think that they actually killed many women, children and so on? It’s what was commanded in rather plain words? What else do you think “kill women and children” means?

    And the passage seems to be limited in area, i.e. it says that they killed every Amalekite from place X to place Y. So presumably there were Amalekites that weren’t in that place.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stewjo004

      @tony

      Exactly, it’s one thing to say destroy these people and inferring something it’s a whole other thing to say kill women, children and babies. Also, we can see they literally put women and children to the sword such as everyone’s favorite passage in Numbers:

      14But Moses was angry with the officers of the army— the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds— who were returning from the battle. 15“Have you spared all the women?” he asked them. 16“Look, these women caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to turn unfaithfully against the LORD at Peor, so that the plague struck the congregation of the LORD. 17So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.

      https://biblehub.com/bsb-strongs/numbers/31.htm

      How the heck is that hyperbole? Biblical Musa(As) is clearly upset they let women and children live. Just because their text is a contradictory hot mess of saying people were destroyed then popping back into existence doesn’t mean this passage doesn’t suggest genocide.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s