PENTATEUCH: A Recap

The Pentateuch (or the Jewish "Torah") refers to the first five books of the bible which primarily tell the story of Moses - the exception of which being the first book, the book of Genesis, which deals with the creation myth, the great flood myth, and sets the foundation for the story of Abraham and his descendants - primarily his grandson Jacob (later renamed Israel) and his twelve sons becoming the "Twelve Tribes of Israel". All five books are also generally accredited to be authored by Moses according to most Abrahamic faiths, despite Moses' death and burial being described within the last chapter of the last book, Deuteronomy.

The book of Genesis is filled with a lot of outlandish and seemingly ridiculous claims (such as "light", "daytime", and "nighttime" being created prior to the creation of the sun; a talking snake that tricks the world's first woman into eating the "forbidden fruit"; the life spans of many people being over 800 to 900 years old; and a 500 year old man who manages to track down and stuff at least one pair of each "kind" of animal onto a wooden boat to survive for nine months while a global flood kills all life upon the earth); lots of stories that are presented as either "good" or "moral" despite being blatantly appalling (such as God committing mass genocide upon the earth with a global flood; a man described as "righteous" who offers up his two virgin daughters to an angry mob for them to be raped; the same "righteous" man allows his daughters to get him drunk after which he proceeds to have sex with them, impregnating them both; and God telling Abraham to commit human sacrifice with his son Isaac, with God stopping him just short of Abe plunging the knife into the boy's chest - just so he could "test" Abraham's loyalty). However, the overall theme of the book is to establish a lineage for the people of Israel for whom the authors intended to appear noble and righteous, which in contrast to modern standards of decency and morality, fails miserably.

The next important theme of the book of Genesis is establishing God's promise to Abraham to build his family into a "great nation", by "promising" him a piece of land that sadly enough people are still fighting over today. The piece of land that God "gives" to Abraham happens to already be occupied by other "heathen nations", so in turn this will justify the forcible taking of this land from people that God doesn't show favor towards. What this actually does is justify stereotyping as well as cultural and ethnic elitism, where ethnicity and a person's culture defines their worth. Despite that the authors attempt to address this very problem with the story of Abraham questioning God's plan to destroy the city of Sodom should there any righteous people found within the city, the problem is that within the real world there aren't such cases of absolutes which are rampant throughout the bible - every enemy nation of the Israelites is treated as if it were "100% wicked" just like we're supposed to believe that the inhabitants of the city of Sodom were. This doesn't even begin to cover other aspects of the problem such as the slaughter of infants, and as we will later see, even animals and livestock belonging to "heathen nations" are to be destroyed for being "defiled".

The book of Exodus introduces us to the character Moses. While briefly telling the story of his birth where he avoids a law of infanticide placed upon male Hebrew infants and how he is then raised by Egyptian royalty, the story then picks up in his adult life where he is appalled by the treatment of Hebrew slaves by the Egyptian people. Upon witnessing an Egyptian soldier strike a Hebrew slave, Moses murders the soldier, hides his body in the sand, and then flees Egypt fearing prosecution for his crime. While he's on the run God appears to Moses in the form of a burning bush and tells him that he's been appointed to lead the Hebrew people out of their slavery in Egypt and into the "promised land". Arming Moses - as well as his brother Aaron, who's been chosen to speak for the Israelites - with a bunch of magic tricks, God guides them as they free the Hebrew people from their slavery in Egypt and then trek across the desert for the next forty years where most of the original generation die off - or are killed by the numerous plagues God thrusts upon them for mostly trivial things like whining about not having enough water to drink.

The underlying theme of the book of Exodus is to demoralize believers into believing that although they are God's chosen people, they are actually unworthy of being so; they are in fact stubborn, disobedient, and whiny and they need the church to lead them. It would be easy to develop an ego in conjunction with the cultural and ethnic elitism that the Pentateuch promotes, so therefore the solution is to crush the individual's self-worth. Beginning with Moses' brother Aaron - the head priest - constructing a golden calf for the Israelites to worship after Moses seemingly went missing atop Mount Sinai for forty days while chatting with God, we begin to see two issues emerge.

The first issue we see is that "holy men" aren't held to the same standards as others. Aaron breaks the second commandment while 3,000 other Israelites are slaughtered; Moses, breaks the eighth commandment ("thou shalt not kill (murder)") without any repercussions; both of Moses' siblings (Aaron and Miriam) complain about Moses breaking one of God's laws, yet God only punishes Miriam (who is stricken with leprosy), absolving Aaron, possibly either because he was a priest, male, or both.

The second issue however is probably the most touted "sin" in the Pentateuch, as well as the first two of the "ten commandments", that a person is not to worship other gods, nor create a "religious idol". These commandments are reinforced more so than any of the other eight (including the commandment to observe the sabbath, which is also repeated many times throughout the Pentateuch) with the punishments being excessively violent and extreme - where in cases where an entire city worships other gods, God commands that every living breathing thing, including livestock, are to be killed and the city is to be burnt to the ground, never to be rebuilt. Why such an excessively violent response, and why is it so overstressed the importance of never seeking after other gods? The most likely explanation is that the supernatural events as depicted in the bible simply either did not happen as the bible depicts them, or that they were not widely witnessed as the bible suggests.

Think about it carefully. If the Israelites did in fact witness all of these spectacular "miracles", plagues, and had seen various masses of people die believing that they were smote by God's wrath, what real motivation would they have to worship "false gods" or idols, which apparently wouldn't display any such supernatural ability? Why was it such a rampant problem of people constantly worshiping "false gods" when there were all these "miraculous" supernatural events caused by God occurring all around them? The simplest explanation is obviously that they either did not witness anything supernatural, or that the story of the exodus was heavily embellished, if not completely fictitious, to begin with. If the Israelites didn't actually witness any supernatural occurrences, or "miracles", then it would put their god belief on a level playing field with any other - simply being a matter of faith, not reason.

When you're dealing with faith based beliefs rather than beliefs based upon evidence, reason, or even personal experience, it is then easy to see why there would be so much concern about the exposure to other faith based belief systems. Both religions would be on an equal footing in regards to what reasoning (or lack thereof) there was to believe. One of the key components to controlling the thoughts of others is to limit their information to the outside world. Even today groups like Amway, Alcoholics Anonymous, and various political groups discourage their members from exposure to any mainstream media that is critical toward the group.

Often times in conjunction with limiting the exposure to the outside world, another tactic of controlling the thoughts of others is to undermine the credibility of or to silence those outside of or those who oppose the group. In the book of Exodus, Moses gives blessings to those who showed no mercy toward their siblings, children, and neighbors by slaughtering them by the thousands, simply because they had worshiped Aaron's golden calf. Later on, after the Israelites sacrificed to other gods at Baal Peor, Moses ordered the leaders of the tribes who worshiped the other gods killed, and their corpses hung up "against the sun". In the same chapter, Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites for tempting the Israelites into worshiping other gods, and when the Israelites slaughter the Midianite men, Moses becomes enraged when he discovers that the women and children were captured and spared. He orders that they should all be killed - except for any girls who are still virgins, whom the soldiers may "keep for themselves".

Although there are several scattered narrative stories in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, overall the main objective of these last three books are to detail the various laws and commandments that the Israelites are to follow - and the deadly punishments that accompany them.

The most common punishment for breaking God's commandments is death by stoning - a brutal method of capital punishment where the condemned is repeatedly hit with stones until they die. Among the "sins" God deems worthy of such a brutal death:

• worshiping other gods, or enticing others to do so
• cursing your mother and/or father
• homosexuality
• bestiality (both the offender and the animal)
• any man who sleeps with a married or engaged woman
• any married or engaged woman who sleeps with a man who is not her husband, or husband to be
• any woman who is raped in a city if she doesn't scream loud enough
• practicing magic or witchcraft, or being a spiritual medium
• doing any work on the sabbath
• blasphemy. or cursing the name of God
• a man who has sex with his either his mother, his daughter in law, or his father's wife
• being a rebellious child
• a wife who's virginity prior to marriage is questioned and whose father cannot provide bloody bedsheets as evidence
• false prophets

Moses attempts to justify these extreme, brutal, violent, and fatal punishments for these predominately non-violent offenses by insisting that such excessive punishments will instill fear into the Israelites, thereby discouraging them from committing such "crimes" in the first place. This is further compounded by some of the ridiculous methods of determining guilt for such "crimes" (such as bloody bedsheets being a "proof" of virginity; or defending your home against an intruder being considered a murder, determined by whether it occurred during the daytime or not).

Again, it begs the question as to why such a seemingly trivial "crime" of worshiping other gods requires such a violent and fatal punishment, and why was it apparently such a widespread concern during an age when God supposedly displayed his supernatural powers regularly.

If the supernatural events described in the Pentateuch didn't actually occur as described the answer becomes simple and obvious - since belief in a god couldn't be backed with reason or evidence, the next best course of action would be to coerce belief and obedience using fear, intimidation, violence, and brutal public execution. Once obedience is secured to a god who apparently only speaks through a select few people, and only "directly" to one person, it begins to make sense why "ordinary people" are also threatened with death for approaching the mountain where Moses apparently communicated with God and prevented from touching or entering the tabernacle to begin with, while those who are in the "inner circle" (the ruling priests and the tribe of Levi) become the sole beneficiaries of the various mandatory animal sacrifices and tithes (religious taxes) imposed upon the "ordinary people".

When the Pentateuch is read without the blinders of automatically believing in its veracity just "because it's the bible", it's quite easy to see that quite simply these books serve as a justification for the Israelites sense of elitism and entitlement over other cultures, and as a set of laws to prevent critical thought which would crumble the foundation of faith-based government. The Pentateuch basically says that their god told them that they're the best, that they're descended from a righteous lineage, and therefore they have every right to kill and slaughter any nation who stands in their way in their quest to conquer the land of Canaan - because their god said so.

NUMBERS: A Recap

The book of Numbers can easily be summed up as to what God does to you when you complain a lot. I started this book in late July and have only now finished it in early November. Some of that is attributed to events in my personal life, but a good portion of the delay was also brought upon by how insane the book of Numbers can be to read as well.

The book begins true to it's name with Moses conducting several censuses of the various tribes of Israel and where they are to camp as the Israelites wander through the desert. God also comes up with a convoluted scheme to "own" the tribe of Levi by arguing that the tribe will actually be a substitution for all the "firstborn males" that God feels he's entitled to, but also manages to scam out some money for the church by using bad math against the rest of the tribes of Israel.

God appoints the Levites to transport the tabernacle around the desert, but under the threat that if they mishandle the tabernacle in anyway that they will be killed, and that anyone else aside from the Levites performing their jobs is to be killed as well.

After having Moses and Aaron purge the camp of lepers, God establishes his "law of jealousies" enabling jealous husbands to put their wife through a humiliating test to "prove" their fidelity, and punishable by horrible disfigurement if they're deemed to have been unfaithful, and "blessed" with becoming pregnant if they pass the test. Regardless of how the test turns out, the husband is never guilty of "sin", as it's apparently his wife's fault for causing his jealousy in the first place - even if she's been faithful to him.

Next up in God's law books is his requirements for a person who wishes to become a Nazarite, which is a temporary vow to God where the person is to avoid cutting their hair, drinking alcohol, or going near a dead body (even if a person happens to die in your presence). At the end of the vow the person is to shave their head, set the hair on fire at the tabernacle, and sacrifice some animals and grains.

Chapter 7 deals with all of the leaders of each tribe of Israel donating collectively to the tabernacle: 36 pounds of silver, 3 pounds of gold, and sacrifice 256 animals over a twelve day period.

After instructing Moses in how to conduct a ceremony to consecrate the Levites - after shaving off all of their body hair and sacrificing a couple of bulls, he spells out some laws concerning what to do is someone defiles themselves or is on vacation during "Passover", and has the people of Israel build some silver trumpets for sounding alarms.

After a chapter where we either get yet another name for Moses' father-in-law, or we are introduced to Moses' brother-in-law, the Israelites finally leave their camp site at the base of Mount Sinai. Unfortunately, the Israelites started to whine shortly afterward so God got angry and set them on fire until Moses prayed for God to stop immolating people.

The people started complaining again (right after having been set on fire) about their diet of "manna", desiring to eat meat again, and God sends them an over-abundance of quails (enough quails, as God says, that the Israelites will vomit meat "out of their nostrils" (Numbers 11:20) and grew tired of eating quails. Once the people began eating the quails though, God gets mad at them for doing so and smites them with a plague.

Meanwhile Moses' siblings Aaron and Miriam complain about Moses' Ethiopian wife, so God infects Miriam with leprosy (while Aaron gets out of punishment freely since he is the head priest) and argues that Moses is the "meekest man on earth". When Moses and Aaron beg God to reverse Miriam's leprosy, he agrees but under the stipulation that he'll only cure her after she remains exiled for seven days.

God has Moses sends out some spies to check out the "promised land", but becomes enraged when the spies discourage the people from invading the land because the land is inhabited by giants (the spies also bring home giant clusters of grapes). Except for the two dissenting spies, Caleb and Joshua, God kills off the rest of the spies with a plague for "slandering" the "promised land". When the people began complaining again, God wants to kill them all until Moses talks him out of it. God decides instead that none of them except for Caleb and Joshua will live to enter the "promised land" and decides to make the people of Israel wander around in the desert for forty years until the current generation dies off. The next day the Israelites decide to attempt to invade Canaan instead of God's insistence that they simply wander around in the desert, but because God doesn't help them in battle, they are chased off by the Canaanites and Amalekites.

After laying out some more laws on sacrificing animals, the Israelites see a man gathering sticks on the sabbath and God commands that they stone him to death. Afterward God also tells the Israelites to make fringes upon their garments attached with blue ribbons.

A group of over 250 men led by a man named Korah, wage a rebellion against Aaron and Moses' leadership. Moses dares the 250 men to light some "holy incense", and when they do just that, God sets them all on fire and then causes an earthquake to swallow up the rest of the men in the rebellion - along with their families. The Israelites complained about Moses and Aaron leading these men to their deaths, so God tells Moses and Aaron to move out of the way so that he can kill them all. God sends a plague, Aaron rushes to light some incense to appease God and stop the plague, but not before God has killed 14,700 people with his plague.

Moses and Aaron devise a "test" to prove their divine right to leadership - Moses has eleven of the twelve tribes sign their names on a stick while Aaron signs the twelfth, Moses puts the sticks in the tabernacle overnight - which only he, Aaron, and Aaron's sons are allowed to enter, and tells the Israelites that whomever's stick blooms with buds, flowers, and almonds the following day is the rightful leader of the Israelites. Of course Aaron wins the contest, and Moses puts Aaron's blossomed stick in the tabernacle as a reminder to the people to not question God's choice in leadership again.

After laying out some more rules and regulations regarding the Levites, God sends Moses and Aaron out to procure a red calf, that after being slaughtered and burned, its ashes are to be mixed in with "holy water" to form a "purification water" to purify people who've touched a corpse.

Moses' sister Miriam dies out in the desert, and the Israelites again find themselves without water. Moses and Aaron botch God's instructions for getting water out of a rock - despite the fact that 1) It worked and 2) they used the same technique that they used prior - and that neither Moses or Aaron shall live to set foot in the "promised land". The Israelites try to get the king of Edom (who were descended from Esau) to let them pass through their land, but the king sends his army to chase them away. They wind up at Mount Hor, where God decides to kill Aaron and appoints Eleazar to take over as the high priest.

The Israelites are then attacked by the Canaanites and some are taken prisoner. The people bargain with God, promising to destroy King Arad's cities if God would deliver the captive people back to the congregation - so the Canaanites and their cities were utterly destroyed, and the region was renamed to reflect that. The Israelites however got discouraged again, so God gets angry and retaliates by unleashing "fiery serpents" upon them. When the Israelites turn to Moses pleading for their lives, Moses forges a statue of a "fiery serpent" out of bronze, puts it on a pole, and tells the people that if they get bit by a snake, all they have to do is to look at Moses' statue and they won't die from their snakebites.

The Israelites requested passage through King Sihon's kingdom, and when he refused and attacked them, the Israelites defeated his army and took all of his cities. When the Israelites approached King Og's army, God tells them to do the exact same thing to King Og as they had done to King Sihon - they defeated his army, killed all of his people, leaving no survivors, and took his land.

King Balak, the king of Moab, fearing that his kingdom would be invaded and conquered by the Israelites as well, summoned a prophet named Balaam to come help him and to curse the Israelites. God initially refuses to let Balaam go, but relents and tells Balaam that he can go, so long as he follows God's instructions to a tee. However, when Balaam leaves the next morning, God gets angry with Balaam and sends an angel to hinder his journey. Only his donkey seems to see the angel blocking the way and the donkey tries to navigate around the angel, but gives up and lays down when the angel blocks a narrow path between two walls. After Balaam beats the donkey for disobeying him, the donkey talks to him and ask him what it had done to deserve such a beating. The angel finally reveals himself to Balaam and also asks why he had beaten the donkey. Balaam sees his mistake and the angel lets him pass, but he gets chewed out by King Balak for delaying his visit.

Balaam and King Balak sacrifice a bunch of animals, and Balaam receives a prophesy from God. However, God won't allow Balaam to curse the Israelites, and under God's instruction he blesses them instead much to the dismay of King Balak. King Balak tries again two more times before giving up in anger and disgust.

The Israelites are now seduced by the local Moabite women, and they coax them into worshiping their gods. God tells Moses to kill the leaders of the Israelites tribes and hang their corpses up in public view, as well as to kill everyone who worshiped any of the Moabite gods. An Israelite named Zimri however, snuck in a Midianite woman into the camp and Aaron's grandson Phinehas barged into their tent and impaled them both while they were copulating. Phinehas' handiwork apparently stopped one of God's plagues (which is never described, or is a reason given for it) which had killed 24,000 people. God rewards Phinehas with an "everlasting priesthood" for him and his descendants. He then tells Moses to "vex the Midianites" (despite the fact that his wife Zipporah and her family are Midianites), and blames them for the worshiping of other gods in Moab (even though the chapter specifies that it were Moabite women who led the Israelites astray).

Moses takes another census of all men fit to serve the military, and is told to divide up the "promised land" amongst the tribes, giving bigger pieces of land to the bigger tribes. However, a group of women demand property rights as their father had died and left behind no male heirs. God grants them property rights and allows for a man's daughter to inherit property (although she has to share it with her uncles) in the event of the man having no male heirs.

God then tells Moses that he will die once he has seen the "promised land" since he "rebelled" against God with the "striking the rock" incident. Moses asks God to pick a successor to lead the Israelites after his death, so God picks Joshua, and has Moses give Joshua a public ceremony to signify his leadership to the people.

God lays out even more demands for animal sacrifices, as well as establishing more animal sacrifices for various holidays. He also gives some rules about making vows, and how women's vows can be overruled by her father or her husband.

God now tells Moses to get revenge against the Midianites, and has him send the Israelites out to battle. The Israelites kill all of the men, but take the women and children prisoner, bringing them home along with all the valuables that they looted. Moses was furious that they had left anyone alive and ordered the troops to kill the women and male children, but stated that the soldiers could keep the female virgins for themselves. Moses exiles those soldiers who had come in contact with any dead bodies, or who were responsible for any killing, out of camp for seven days for "purification" and divides up the loot amongst the soldiers, the priests, the Levites, and the common people of Israel.

Upon their travels the tribes of Gad and Reuben convince a reluctant Moses that they'd rather take the nice cattle friendly land of Gilead than their inheritance in the "promised land". The tribes convince Moses to allow them to reside in Gilead providing they follow through on their military commitments to conquering Canaan and driving out the inhabitants currently residing in the "promised land" there. (The tribe of Manasseh also becomes allowed to reside in Gilead after they drive the inhabitants of Gilead out of the city.)

Moses has apparently been keeping a written record of the entire exodus, and is later told by God that every last Canaanite is to be driven out of the land, and that all of their images, statues, and altars are to be torn down and destroyed. Any Canaanite not driven out of the "promised land" will be a "thorn in the side" of the Israelites, and God will also do unto the Israelites what he "had thought to do" to the Canaanites.

God then sets the border lines for the "promised land" and appoints leaders from each tribe to assist in dividing up the land for each family. God also requires that the Levites are to be given a total of 48 cities (and surrounding suburb land) from the other tribes, and that six of these cities are to be "cities of refuge", where people who have accidentally killed someone can flee to safety away from their victim's family seeking revenge - but if the "revenger" finds them outside of the "city of refuge", then it's perfectly okay for them to kill the innocent person.

Finally, the book closes out with the clan of Gilead (from the tribe of Manasseh) complaining about a loophole in the property rights of the daughters from Chapter 27, and God amends his law to stipulate that if a man's daughters inherit land, they will only be allowed to marry within their own tribe - as otherwise the land would go to whichever tribe her husband belonged to.

NUMBERS: Chapter 36

Chapter 36
Summary:	The leaders of the clan of Gilead (of the clan of Machir, and of the tribe of Manasseh - son of Joseph) approached Moses and the leaders of Israel with a complaint. They complained that God had allowed the daughters of Zelophehad to inherit their father's land, yet if these girls marry someone from another tribe, then that tribe would gain that land, and the tribe of Manasseh would lose that land and wouldn't redeem it at the "Year of Jubilee". Moses conceded that the men had made a valid point and spoke to the people of Israel concerning God's verdict. Moses tells the people that the daughter of Zelophehad are to marry anyone they like - so long as they marry within their own tribe. Every daughter that inherits land upon the death of her father is only to marry within her own tribe, so that each tribe can keep their inheritance. The daughters of Zelophehad - Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah - did as commanded and only married within their own tribe of Manasseh, so that their inheritance stayed within their tribe. These are the commandments and judgments which God gave to Moses and the Israelites down in the plains of Moab, by the Jordan River, near Jericho.
Thoughts:	This brief and final chapter in the book of Numbers is a clarification of Numbers: Chapter 27, in which the daughters of Zelophehad - Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah - had inherited their father's portion of land due to their father's death without having fathered a son. The clan of Gilead complained to Moses about an oversight, arguing that if the girls married outside of their tribe of Manasseh, then the tribe of Manasseh would lose land - land that wouldn't be redeemed at the 50 year celebration of the "Year of Jubilee" - that would instead belong to their husband's tribe after marriage. Moses decides that the men have a valid point and therefore orders that the daughters of Zelophehad are only allowed to marry within their own tribe. Like Henry Ford's famous quote about the choice of colors for his automobiles ("as long as it's black"), Moses decrees that the girls are allowed to marry whomever they want - so long as they only marry within their own tribe. It's unclear how incestuous such a marriage would be within a tribe of 52,700, but it's still disturbing to contemplate nonetheless. So the daughters of Zelophehad do as Moses commanded, and it becomes a new statute that all daughters who inherit land are to marry from within their own tribe.

NUMBERS: Chapter 35

Chapter 35
Summary:	God speaks to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan River, near Jericho. He tells Moses to command the people of Israel to give some cities and suburbs to the Levites for their inheritance. The cities are to be for their homes, and the suburbs are for their goods and livestock. The suburbs are to extend one thousand cubits (approximately 1,500 feet) outwards and around from the city walls. The city is to be measured at two thousand cubits on each side (north, south, east, and west), with the city lying in the center. Among the cities that are to be given to the Levites, there are to be six cities for refuge - where a person who has accidentally killed another person may flee to. In addition to these six cities, another forty two are to be given to the Levites as well, for a total of 48 cities along with suburbs for each. These cities are to be given to the Levites by the people of Israel; larger tribes are to give several cities, while smaller tribes are to give fewer. God continues on, telling Moses that when the people arrive in the "promised land" there are to designate cities to become "cities of refuge" for anyone to flee to who has accidentally killed another person. They are to be cities of refuge for the accused against any avengers, so that the accused is not killed until he stands before the congregation in judgment. Three of these "cities of refuge" are to be located outside of the land of Canaan, east of the Jordan River, while three are to remain within the land of Canaan. These six cities are to be a refuge for both the Israelites as well as the foreigners and visitors to the land. If a person has been struck and killed by an instrument made of iron, then the person who struck him is to be automatically considered a murderer and is to be put to death. If a person has been struck and killed by a thrown stone, then the person who struck him is to be automatically considered a murderer and is to be put to death. If a person has been struck and killed by a "hand weapon" made of wood, then the person who struck him is to be automatically considered a murderer and is to be put to death. The victim's next of kin, a "revenger of blood", shall slay the "murderer" when he meets him. If a person attacks another out of hatred, thrusting something at him, ambushing him, or striking him with his hand that he should die, the person that caused the death shall be put to death himself, for he is a murderer. The "revenger of blood" shall slay the murderer when he meets him. But if the person was struck without enmity, without intending to hit anyone, or a stone being thrown where the person was not seen, nor was an enemy, nor was any harm intended, then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the "revenger of blood". If the slayer is deemed innocent by the congregation, then the slayer is to remain within the city of refuge where he will live until the death of the high priest. However, if the slayer leaves the "city of refuge" at any time and is found and killed by the "revenger of blood" outside of the "city of refuge", then the "revenger of blood" shall not be considered guilty of murder - because the slayer should have remained within the "city of refuge" until the death of the high priest. After the death of the high priest however, the slayer is to return to his homeland. These statutes are to be permanent throughout generations in the land. Whomever kills another person is a murderer and shall be put to death - so long as there are witnesses. No one is to be put to death if there is only one witness to testify against them. No ransom or reward is to be taken to spare the life of a murderer, he is to be put to death. Likewise, no ransom or reward is to be taken to allow a slayer who has fled to a "city of refuge" to be allowed return to his home prior to the death of the high priest. The land is not to be polluted with murder, for murder pollutes the land. The land cannot be "cleansed" of murder except by the execution of the murderer. God says the "promised land" is not to be defiled in this way, because this is the land God dwells in.
Thoughts:	Since the Levites aren't allowed to "inherit" any land in the "promised land" like the rest of the tribes of Israel, God declares that the other tribes will have to give some of their cities to them - 48 cities to be exact. 42 of these cities, as well as 1,000 cubits of surrounding land are to be used for the Levites homes, goods, and livestock, while the other six are to be used as "cities of refuge". These "cities of refuge" are basically to be used as an asylum for people who are accused of murder to flee from the victim's family seeking revenge. Three of these cities are to be located outside of the city of Canaan, and three are to be located within the city; and they are to be used for both the people of Israel, as well as any foreigner or visitor to the land suspected of murder. God then goes over some broad generalizations about what types of deaths are to be automatically considered "murder" - being struck and killed by an instrument made of either iron or wood, or being hit by a thrown stone. In these cases it's okay to presume the murderer's guilt, and they are to be executed by the "revenger of blood" - the victim's next of kin - upon the two meeting. When we read such ridiculously flawed biblical laws, it becomes blatantly obvious that there is simply no way an all-wise, all-knowing, super deity came up with these very poor laws. Either we have to concede that these laws were made by primitive men, or that God is pretty dumb. The apologist spin is usually that "we have to understand these laws in the context of the times", but even giving concession to the primitive nature of the times, these are still very bad laws. God states that whomever kills another person is a murderer, so long as there is a witness to testify against him. So by this logic, if one of your relatives was killed by an accident, and you or someone else provided false testimony to accuse them of murder, you could basically kill innocent people. A witness could give false testimony unintentionally even with good intentions, as witnesses can be severely flawed in determining what they actually saw versus what they think they saw - just read some of the reports of eye witnesses to the Kennedy assassination, where there are still people who insist they heard gunshots from multiple locations. Worse still, this law continues and says that if the accused leaves his sanctuary at the "city of refuge" and is spotted by his "revenger of blood", then it's okay for the "revenger" to kill him because he's supposed to be hiding in the asylum. God states that someone who has accidentally killed another has to stay in this "city of refuge" until the high priest has died, and then the accused has to return to his home - where presumably, it might be okay for his "revenger" to finally murder him. Again, these have got to be the worst laws regarding "murder" and "manslaughter" I have ever heard - even a class of first graders could come up with better laws than these. God concludes the chapter stating his motivation for favoring capital punishment. God states that the "promised land" is not to be polluted with murder, simply because murder "pollutes the land", and God chooses to live amongst the people and refuses to live in a "polluted land". The only way to "clean" the land of murder is to execute the murderer. However, with laws these terrible, probably a lot of innocent people went to their deaths on flimsy evidence and witnesses, thereby making a lot of "revengers of blood" unpunished murderers in their own respect.

NUMBERS: Chapter 34

Chapter 34
Summary:	God speaks to Moses, telling him to speak with the people of Israel concerning setting borders for the "promised land" in Canaan. The southern border will be the wilderness of Zin, along the coast of Edom, and the southern border will also lie among the outmost coast of the Dead Sea. The southern border will continue to the ascent of Akrabbim, pasing on to Zin, going forth from the south to Kadeshbarnea, on to Hazaraddar, and on to Azmon. From Azmon, it will follow the river of Egypt out to the Mediterranean Sea. The western border will be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea. The northern border will begin at the Mediterranean Sea and head eastward to Mount Hor, then to the entrance of Hamath, and through Zedad and Ziphron, to Hazarenan. The eastern border will begin from Hazarenan and follow south to Shepham, continuing to Riblah on the east side of Ain. The border shall then descend and reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth, following down to the Jordan River, and ending at the Dead Sea. Moses tells the people of Israel that the land within these borders God has specified is what they shall inherit by lot by the nine and a half tribes (the tribes of Gad and Reuben, along with the "half tribe" of Manasseh were allowed to take up land in Gilead outside of the "promised land"). God now tells Moses that in addition to Eleazar, and Joshua (the son of Nun), that he has appointed one leader from each tribe to assist with dividing up the land: Judah: Caleb the son of Jephunneh Simeon: Shemuel the son of Ammihud Benjamin: Elidad the son of Chislon Dan: Bukki the son of Jogli Manasseh: Hanniel the son of Jephunneh Ephraim: Kemuel the son of Shiphtan Zebulun: Elizaphan the son of Parnach Issachar: Paltiel the son of Azzan Asher: Ahihud the son of Shelomi Naphtali: Pedahel the son of Ammihud
Thoughts:	In this chapter God basically sets the borders for the "promised land" and has Moses tell the people of Israel that this portion of land is to be divided up amongst all of the Israelite families. In addition to Eleazar and Joshua, God appoints a representative from each tribe - making an exception for the tribes of Gad and Reuben, along with the "half tribe" of Manasseh who were allowed to take up land in Gilead outside of the "promised land" in Numbers: Chapter 32. God specifies that without these two and a half tribes, there will be representatives from the other nine and a half tribes, however when we look at the list God comes up with, somehow the "half tribe of Manasseh" is listed amongst them - which appears to be either a mathematical or logical error. If we look at the most basic mathematics, we have 12 tribes of Israel; technically the Levites are one of the twelve tribes, but in their absence due to their tabernacle duties, the "half tribes" of Joseph are split by his sons Ephraim and Manasseh so that the total equals twelve. The tribes of Gad and Reuben wanted the lands of Gilead instead of an inheritance in Canaan, so they're taken away from the total, as well as the "half tribe" of Manasseh who helped conquer the lands of Gilead. The logistical problem is whether to count the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh as either a full number or a half number. When we takes the Levites out of the equation, we have to count the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh as full numbers to equal twelve. However, here in Chapter 34 we're mistakenly assuming that each tribe (Ephraim and Manasseh) should be counted as a half number - and without the Levites, we'd have a total of 11 tribes. Taking away 2 and a half tribes (three individual tribes) away from a total of twelve, would leave 9 and a half tribes (ten individual tribes), but we would need thirteen individual tribes to begin with, meaning we would have had to include the Levites - which wouldn't make sense as the Levites were not allowed to be given an inheritance. If we're excluding the tribes of Gad and Reuben from representing themselves because they aren't inheriting land in the "promised land", then we also must exclude the tribes of Levi and Manasseh for the same reasons. Why the "half tribe" of Manasseh shows up in the list seems to simply be a mathematical and logistical error to simply preserve the illusion of there always needing to be "twelve tribes" of Israel. The reader sees 2 and a half tribes are ineligible, and therefore logically thinks that there must be 9 and a half tribes that are eligible, which simply isn't true unless we include the Levites amongst the numbers.

NUMBERS: Chapter 33

Chapter 33
Summary:	The journey of the Israelites had been written down and recorded by Moses under commandment from God. These are the events that Moses had recorded: The people of Israel departed the city of Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month (roughly the first of April by our modern calendar), the day after "passover". The Egyptians had buried all their firstborn, which had been killed by God. Also, upon the Egyptian gods, God also executed judgments. The people of Israel left Rameses and camped in Succoth. After leaving Succoth they camped in Etham, which is on the edge of the wilderness. After leaving Etham, they turned towards Pihahiroth (near Baalzephon) and camped at the foot of Mount Migdol. They left Pihahiroth, passed through the middle of the Red Sea, spending three days in the wilderness of Etham before camping at Marah. After leaving Marah, they camped in Elim. In Elim there were twelve fountains of water and seventy palm trees. After leaving Elim, they camped by the Red Sea. After leaving the Red Sea, they camped in the wilderness of Sihn (humorously spelled "Sin" in the KJV). After leaving the wilderness of Sihn, they camped in Dophkah. After leaving Dophkah they camped in Alush. After leaving Alush, they camped in Rephidim - where there was no water for the people to drink. After leaving Rephidim, they camped in the wilderness of Sinai. After leaving the desert of Sinai, they camped at Kibrothhattaavah. After leaving Kibrothhattaavah, they camped at Hazeroth. After leaving Hazeroth, they camped in Rithmah. After leaving Rithmah, they camped in Rimmonparez. After leaving Rimmonparez, they camped in Libnah. After leaving Libnah, they camped in Rissah. After leaving Rissah, they camped in Kehelathah. After leaving Kehelathah, they camped at Mount Shapher. After leaving Mount Shapher, they camped in Haradah. After leaving Haradah, they camped in Makheloth. After leaving Makheloth, they camped at Tahath. After leaving Tehath, they camped at Tarah. After leaving Tarah, they camped in Mithcah. After leaving Mithcah, they camped in Hashmonah. After leaving Hashmonah, they camped at Moseroth. After leaving Moseroth, they camped in Benejaakan. After leaving Benejaakan, they camped at Horhagidgad. After leaving Horhagidgad, they camped in Jotbathah. After leaving Jotbathah, they camped at Ebronah. After leaving Ebronah, they camped at Eziongaber. After leaving Eziongaber, they camped in Kadesh, located in the wilderness of Zin. After leaving Kadesh, they camped in Mount Hor, located on the edge of the land of Edom. Here, Aaron climbed Mount Hor at God's command, and God killed him. This occurred in the fortieth year after the people of Israel left Egypt, and on the first day of the fifth month (approximately July 15th by our current calendar). Aaron was one hundred and twenty three years old when God killed him on Mount Hor. King Arad the Canaanite (who lived to the south of Mount Hor in the land of Canaan) heard at this time of the Israelites approach to his land. After leaving Mount Hor, the Israelites camped in Zalmonah. After leaving Zalmonah, they camped in Punon. After leaving Punon, they camped in Oboth. After leaving Oboth, they camped in Ijeabarim, located on the border of Moab. After leaving Iim*, they camped in Dibongad. After leaving Dibongad, they camped in Almondiblathaim. After leaving Almondiblathaim, they camped in the mountains of Abarim, near Nebo. After leaving the mountains of Abarim, they camped in the plain of Moab by the Jordan River, near the city of Jericho. They camped by the Jordan River, from Bethesimoth all the way to Abelshittim in the plains of Moab. God spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab, by the Jordan River near Jericho and told him to speak to the Israelites. He tells Moses that when the Israelites cross the Jordan River and enter the land of Canaan, they are to drive out the inhabitants of the land, and are to destroy all their pictures, molten images, and to tear down their altars. The inhabitants are to be driven out, God says, because the land has been "given" to the Israelites to possess it. The land of Canaan is to be "divided by lot" for inheritance among the families of the Israelites. Bigger families are to draw for bigger pieces of land, and smaller families are to draw for smaller pieces of land. God adds however, that if the Israelites don't fully drive out the inhabitants of Canaan, then those Canaanites that remain will be "pricks in your eyes" and "thorns in your sides", and shall vex the people of Israel in the land wherein they dwell. Moreover, it shall come to pass that God will do unto the Israelites what he "thought to do" unto the Canaanites.
Notes:	1.) It is unclear why the name "Ijeabarim" has been changed in the verse that follows to "Iim". It's possible that "Iim" may be another name for "Ijeabarim", or it may be possible that these are two different locales.
Thoughts:	This chapter is mainly an outline describing the locations of the various Israeli campsites over the forty year journey from Egypt to Canaan. Apparently God had commanded Moses to keep a written record of their journey, and it is detailed here in Numbers 33. What is interesting about this list, is that we see that the story of the Israelites takes place in the desert of Sinai beginning in Exodus: Chapter 19, and continues throughout the entire book of Leviticus, and up until Numbers: Chapter 11. Over the next nine chapters in the book of Numbers, the Israelites travel to over 22 different locations before God kills Aaron atop Mount Hor, and another 9 locations up to the end of this chapter. While the Israelites were camped in the plains of Moab, God tells Moses that the Israelites are to drive out every last Canaanite out of the "promised land", and that they are to also destroy every last picture, idol, statue, and altars they may have built in the land. God rationalized this by stating that the land has been "given" (actually it would be more accurate to state that God had simply permitted the Israelites to forcibly steal the land away from its inhabitants) to the Israelites. God repeats his declaration that the land of Canaan is to be divided up and drawn by method of a lottery for the families among the various tribes of Israel. Larger pieces of land are to be drawn up for larger families, and smaller pieces of land are to be drawn up for smaller families. God finishes up his earlier threat by stating that if the Israelites fail to fully drive out every last Canaanite, then those remaining Canaanites will be "pricks in [their] eyes" and "thorns in [their] sides" and will vex the Israelites in the land. Moreover, God threatens that he will do to the Israelites what he has thought of doing to the Canaanites...which it's probably safe to assume that it's nothing too pretty.

NUMBERS: Chapter 32

Chapter 32
Summary:	Both tribes of Reuben and Gad had a vast amount of cattle, and when they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead they noticed how well suited the place was for their cattle. They approached Moses, Eleazar, and the leaders of the congregation to speak with them about the land. They pointed out that the countries that God had smote along the way to the "promised land" - the lands of Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Shebam, Nebo, and Beon - were perfect for raising cattle. The servants of the tribes of Reuben and Gad asked for permission - if they were in good graces - to instead of crossing the Jordan with the rest of the Israelites and claim an inheritance in the "promised land", that they instead be able to settle here instead. Moses answered them by inferring that they were simply trying to get out of their military duties, and that if they were to settle outside of the "promised land", it would send off a bad message to the rest of the Israelites and discourage them as what happened when Moses sent forth the spies. Moses furthered that when the spies had scouted out the valley of Eschol, they had discouraged "the heart of the people of Israel", that they were unwilling to go into the "promised land" that God had "given" them. Moses continues the story, explaining that God's anger was kindled by the incident and swore that no man twenty years or older would be allowed to see the land sworn to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because those people did not wholly follow God - with the exception of Caleb (son of Jephunneh the Kenezite) and Joshua (the son of Nun), because they did wholly follow God. Fueled with anger, God had made the Israelites wander in the wilderness for forty years until that generation had died off - because they had "done evil" in the eyes of God. Moses then told the tribes of Reuben and Gad, that here they were now being "sinful" and doing the same thing that their forefathers had done. He warned them that if they turned away from God, then God will yet again leave them out in the wilderness, which would destroy the people of Israel. The tribes then assured Moses that although they would have to build sheepfold for their cattle and cities for their young in the meantime - to protect them from the nearby inhabitants, that they would be willing to arm themselves and march ahead of the people of Israel until they safely reached the "promised land". They promised Moses that they would not return to their homes here until the people of Israel have occuppied the "promised land". Moses responded that if they armed themselves, went to war, and drive out the enemies of Israel, then they will be guiltless before God and before the people of Israel, and then the land will be theirs. However, if they break their promise then they shall have "sinned" against God and that their "sin" will be upon them. He tells the tribes to go ahead and build their walled cities for their young, and folds for their sheep, and do as they had promised. The tribes of Gad and Reuben assured Moses that they would do as he commanded, stating that their wives, children, flocks, and cattle would stay behind in the cities of Gilead, but that every man able to go to war will battle for God. Moses then said to Eleazar, Joshua, and the leaders of the tribes of Israel that if the people of Gad and Reuben cross the Jordan River armed to do battle, then when the "promised land" is conquered, Gilead must be given to the tribes of Gad and Reuben as a possession. Moses continues, stating that if they refuse to cross the Jordan River to battle, then they will have to accept land amongst the rest of the Israelites in Canaan. Again the tribes of Gad and Reuben agreed saying that they would do as God commands them, fighting in Canaan for God as so that the lands on the other side of the Jordan River would be theirs. Moses gave the kingdom of Sihon (king of the Ammorites) and the kingdom of Og (king of Bashan) - and all the land and cities contained within - to the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh. The people of Gad built the following cities: Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, Atroth, Shophan, Jaazer, Jogbehah, Bethnimrah, and Bethharan. They were all fortified cities with sheepfolds. The people of Reuben built the following cities: Heshbon, Elealah, Kirjathaim, Nebo (the name being changed), Baalmeon (the name also being changed), and Shibmah. They also gave other names to the cities they rebuilt. The clan of Machir (son of Manasseh) from the tribe of Manasseh went to Gilead, took the land, and drove out the Amorites who were residing there. Moses gave Gilead to the clan of Machir, and they lived there. Another clan of Manasseh, Jair (another son of Manasseh) went and took the small towns surrounding Gilead and renamed the area Havothjair. A man named Nobah went and took Kenath, and the surrounding villages, and named it Nobah, after himself.
Thoughts:	Both the tribes of Reuben and Gad noticed that the ruins of the lands of Jazer and Gilead seemed extremely well suited for raising cattle. So they approached Moses and Eleazar asking if they could forfeit their inheritance in the "promised land" and instead settle in these lands. Moses however, accuses them of trying to skirt out of their military duty, and says that if they were to settle outside of the "promised land", that this would send off a bad message to the rest of the Israelites. He claims that this would discourage the others from wanting to conquer the "promised land" much in the same way as what happened when the spies Moses sent out had discouraged the people with their reports of giants. Moses recounts the whole story over again about how the people's reluctance to conquer the "promised land" angered God so much that he made them all wander around in the desert for forty years until the entire generation died off (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, and of course Moses and Aaron's priestly sons). Moses accuses the tribes of doing the same thing that the spies had done forty years ago, and tells the tribes of Gad and Reuben that if God got angry with the Israelites again for being reluctant to conquer the "promised land", that it would surely be the end of the Israelites. Basically what Moses is saying is that the people of Israel are highly gullible, easily manipulated, and easily led astray. Honestly, when we look at this rationally, this would make sense in regards to indoctrinating people with religion. Moses then threatens the tribes of Reuben and Gad by telling them if they don't conquer the "promised land" as God had ordered, then that God would simply wipe out the people of Israel. The problem I have with this whole "promised land" concept is that God "promised" this land to Abraham and his descendants hundreds of years prior; since then he has done absolutely nothing to prevent other people from inhabiting this land; and now is encouraging the Israelites to go around violently killing other civilizations and keeping their virgin daughters in order to claim their "promised land". Think of it this way - My family built a house 400 years ago, and they told one of your ancestors that this house will belong to your family someday - not in your ancestor's lifetime, but that his descendants will own this house in due time. Years go by and squatters inhabit the house, and they manage to turn the run down house into a livable home. They paint the house, mow the yard, tend the garden, and maintain this house throughout their generations over the next 400 years. Then the day comes where I finally decide that you can have the house, but I'm going to make you get the squatters out of there yourself. I haven't told the squatters to leave, given them any formal warning, and I'm certainly not going to kick them out myself. So instead, I tell you that not only do you have to kick these people out yourself, but that you are not to leave a single person in the house alive - except for the family's daughter, providing she's a virgin, who you can then "keep for yourself". How anyone can justify this absurd story as moral, just, or ethical is beyond me. Anyways, the tribes of Reuben and Gad assure Moses that they had no intention of shirking their military duties. They tell Moses, that if they can keep this land in Gilead, that as soon as they finish building some folds for their cattle and fortified cities for their wives and children (so that they could defend themselves from invaders), then they would actually arm themselves and lead the charge into the "promised land" themselves. They further promised Moses that they would not return to their homes in Gilead until the Israelites had finally occupied the "promised land". Moses then accepts that if they follow through with their military promise, then they will be "guiltless" before God and the rest of the Israelites, and Moses then gives them permission to build their sheep folds and walled cities. (Moses also points out that if they fail, then they will be branded as "sinners".) The tribes agree to the terms but answer curiously, stating that "they will do as God commands them" - which seems a bit backwards considering that the entire idea was their suggestion, and not God's. Moses then gives the former kingdoms of Og and Sihon to the tribes of Gad and Reueben, as well as to the tribe of Manasseh - presumably because the clan of Machir drove out the Amorites from Gilead, and the clan of Jair conquered the towns surrounding Gilead (both clans hailed from the tribe of Manasseh). The people of Gad built the cities of Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, Atroth, Shophan, Jaazer, Jogbehah, Bethnimrah, and Bethharan; while the people of Reuben built the cities of Heshbon, Elealah, Kirjathaim, Nebo , Baalmeon , and Shibmah. They fortified these cities and built sheepfolds in them, and changed the names of some of the cities from their original names. The chapter ends by stating that a man named Nobah conquered the city of Kenath (and the surrounding villages) and named it after himself.

NUMBERS: An Apologist Rebuttal

In Numbers Chapter 31 we read about two verses that are absolutely appalling, where Moses tells his army to kill every male child and every non-virgin woman, but that the soldiers could keep the virgin girls for themselves.

The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:

31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

I find both of these verses completely beyond any rational justification, so I was curious as to how biblical apologists attempt to defend these two verses. I have chosen to address why I strongly disagree with these arguments below:

Apologetics Press.Org URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586 The Killings of Numbers 31 by A.P. Staff The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan. But one story that sometimes stands out in the minds of skeptics is the one found in Numbers 31, where God seemingly gives no reason for killing defenseless women and male children. Actually, it is Moses who calls for the killing of defenseless women and male children. This chapter does not state that this is explicitly a commandment or judgment from God, although it could be argued that when God commanded the Israelites to "vex the Midianites" in Numbers Chapter 25, perhaps he meant instead to "commit genocide upon the Midianites". Secondly, the problem I as a skeptic have, is not that God "gives no reason" (most of people realize why Moses commanded the killings) it's that I simply don't find this a moral or ethical justification for rape and murder. In addition, it has been suggested that the young girls mentioned in the account were spared so that the Israelite men could rape them. If this were not the case, there would be no reason to ensure that the girls were virgins ("have not known a man by lying with him"). What other possible reason could there be to make a stipulation that a person's life was dependent on their virginity and that soldiers were to "keep [the girls] alive for [them]selves"? Such accusations are baseless, however, as is evident when they are viewed in light of other related passages. They are not baseless. The argument is based on the facts that 1) Moses laid out a stipulation for the girls' survival - their virginity, and 2) that the soldiers were told that they were to keep the virgin girls for themselves. The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Agreed. This is the basis of my topic as well. To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. This is incorrect. According to the first three verses of Numbers 25 it was the Moabites not the Midianites who "led the Israelites astray" into "worshiping Baal of Peor". Numbers 25:1-3 reads as follows: 25:1 "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 25:2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel." Strangely, the rest of the chapter shifts its attention to the Midianites without explanation. It's a popular assumption among theologians that there's a possibility that the chapter is actually two separate stories merged together. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.” This argument has two problems, the first being that Deuteronomy appears sequentially in the bible after the the book of Numbers. While it's a possibility that the bible could be out of sequence, or that this law was somehow known to the Israelites prior to the events in Numbers 25 there is no basis to support either explanation. Secondly, Moses' own wife Zipporah was a Midianite herself (see Exodus Chapter 2) and therefore Moses would in violation of this law himself. Therefore why did Phinehas not thrust a spear through Moses and Zipporah as well? As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18). I addressed this point in my thoughts on Numbers 25, and God is shifting the blame here. We're villainizing the Midianite women to partially excuse and soften the "sins" committed by the Israelites, because for some reason the Israelites apparently have no minds of their own and will do anything women from other cultures tell them too, even when it violates their own laws. When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy. The apologist here is completely forgetting that we're also dealing with not just women but children. Even if we were to accept the apologist's point at face value, the virgin girls that Moses tells the soldiers to "keep for themselves" would also be a "direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25". But how can we explain the destruction of the young boys? Why were they not spared along with the young girls? God does not seem very concerned about the deaths of male children as evidenced by the story of the Egyptian plagues in Exodus Chapter 11. Skeptics read of events such as the conquest of Canaan, and contend that no God could be so cruel as to call for the destruction of an entire nation. No, you're completely missing the point. If we can assume for the sake of argument that god(s) exist, then there is absolutely no argument why such a god couldn't exhibit cruelty - even if he himself claims to be "merciful". All sorts of tyrannical rulers have had inflated egos and distorted self images, and many of the people being ruled by them go along with the charade in a variant sort of Stockholm Syndrome. One only needs to examine 1930's Germany to see that Hitler had overwhelming public support despite the tyranny of his regime. The problem is that I simply don't agree that the god of the bible is either "loving" or "merciful" when those attributes are in direct contradiction to his depiction in the bible. I have no problem with saying that God is cruel, I have more of a problem defining him as "loving" and "merciful". The mere idea of the God of heaven ordering the death of women and innocent children so outraged infidel Thomas Paine... I had to interrupt here due to the humor I find in this apologist calling one of the Founding Fathers of the United States (who many evangelical christians claim founded this country on christianity) an "infidel". ...that he said such a scenario was sufficient evidence in and of itself to cause him to reject the divine origin of the Bible (1795, p. 90).(p. 95 on Google Books) Upon finding a copy of Thomas Paine's book "Age of Reason" on Google Books, I have failed to see where this apparent "fact" (the above reference corresponds to page 95 on the Google Books document) is derived from. For the sake of argument, I would agree that using the reason that "God is cruel" would not be a valid argument for not believing in the "divine origin" of the bible. There are much more compelling and stronger arguments for reaching the conclusion that the bible is man-made. However, insinuating that "the infidel" Thomas Paine does not believe in the bible's authenticity simply because he doesn't like the way God acts, is using a strawman argument to make Thomas Paine's argument seem ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me to see an apologist stoop to such a ridiculous argument and resort to name calling to further villainize their opposition. In fact, he condemned the Bible for its alleged moral atrocities, I would have to agree with our Founding Father on this point. and even went so far as to blame the Bible for virtually every moral injustice ever committed. He wrote: Whence arose the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? (p. 185).(p. 190 on Google Books) Claiming that Paine was blaming "the bible" for "virtually every moral injustice ever committed" is quite a bit of a stretch. In the above quote he is neither singling out the bible, nor is he encompassing "virtually every moral injustice". In the above quote he is speaking of the moral injustices specifically that plagued Europe, which mostly were fueled by religious atrocities. However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. To justify the killing of children except for the female virgins, which we can keep for ourselves against their will, exhibits a complete lack of an understanding of morality. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. Yes, because we know that according to the bible everything is measured in absolutes - this entire nation over here is entirely good, and that nation over there is entirely bad. No bad people live in the good nation, and no good people live in the bad nation. This is an asinine outlook that has no semblance to reality. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). I find this to be a weak argument that God and/or the Israelites had any cares as to whether any of the surrounding tribes "repented" or not. God's commandments as they appear in the bible condoning slavery, mass killings, and beatings never are excepted with a line that says "unless they repent". Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. And just who says that death is a better fate than slavery? If one were to put up a poll and give an entire nation a choice of either euthanasia or a life in slavery, how many do you truly believe would choose to be killed to spare themselves from a life of slavery? Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If it was such a blessing to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise" why not kill the virgin girls as well, or is it more of a blessing to marry them off to rapists? If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. "Most likely"? If they were allowed to live amongst the Israelites, what chance would they even have at being exposed to the "pagan ways" of their fathers? So it's morally ethical to kill people on the assumption of what "possibly" could happen? Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later. How can we be certain that their parents were "abominable sinners" and not apostates in their own "pagan ways"? We're simply supposed to believe in biblical absolutes, I suppose, in order to justify our preventative killing of children who *might* grow up to be our enemies. Man hardly can blame God and His Word for the awful consequences of sin; Sure we can, just the same as we can blame any leader, dictator, ruler, or king for the consequences of their unjust and sadistic laws. When we hear about a woman being stoned to death in the Middle East for the "crime" of being a rape victim, we certainly can blame the people who made this law and those that enforce it. rather, he has only himself to blame (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Children are not to blame for where they were born and who they were born to. A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment, The problem with this analogy is using an "appropriate punishment". and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent by clear-thinking people. The problem here is that the analogy is flawed and does not fit with the context of the story. A more appropriate analogy would be: A parent who was warned about the consequences of committing a crime, was made aware of the criminal penalty, and then when commits a crime, is greeted with the police breaking down his door and shooting his entire family - except for his virgin pre-teen daughter whom the police chief takes home with him to make her his wife. Yet, critics ask us to view God as some type of ogre for following the same course of action. Again, the apologist analogy is not the same course of action - nor is it even close - to the one God has taken. The discrepancy is not with the Almighty, but with His cowering critics. I would argue that the discrepancy is actually with the apologist who can't make a proper analogy. The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge. Because obviously there's absolutely nothing telling in Moses' statement that only the virgin girls would be allowed to live. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve. This assumption is reaching. The way it is written is that it simply means "a virgin". If God wanted only twelve year old girls and younger to be spared, he surely could have stated that. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live. Virginity has nothing to do with a woman's ability to manipulate people, nor to a degree, would her age. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. It is not logical to assume that the Israelites wanted these girls "for servants", when they specifically were spared on the basis of their virginity and not their age, or another more reasonable factor. Secondly, foreign "servants" were not by any means servants, they were slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 the following verses make it clear God's laws on enslaving surrounding "heathen" nations: 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." Trying to soften the image of slavery into "servitude" also contradicts what Exodus 21:20-21 has to say about how you can beat your slaves: 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." So, it is perfectly okay to beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die right away in a day or two after the beating. You won't receive any punishment because they're "your money" (your property). Third, why weren't these female children "spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves" and instead of allowing "these innocents" to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise"? This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Joshua Chapter 9 makes a very bad case for attempting to downplay slavery as "servitude", as evidenced in Joshua 9:23. 9:23 "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25). Deuteronomy 22:23-28 treats rape a lot differently then the apologist would like us to believe. Verses 23 through 27 deal solely with a woman who is engaged to be married, which the Midianite girls obviously wouldn't be - at least to any suitor that is alive that is. Verses 23-24 state that both the rapist and the engaged to be married, virgin, rape victim must be punished by mean of being stoned to death if the rape occurs in the city and the victim didn't cry loud enough: 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." This has more to do with the "crime" of depriving a husband of his right to consummate his marriage than it does with punishing rapists, which is why the victim is to be stoned to death along with her rapist. Verses 25-27 deal with a woman being raped out in the field where only the rapist is to be killed, simply because there wouldn't be a way to judge whether the woman screamed out or not, thereby proving whether the sex was consensual or not: 22:25 "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her." Verses 28 and 29 deal with rape in the sense in which it would apply more closely to the Midianite girls, assuming they were to be given the rights of an Israeli woman. Not surprisingly the apologist doesn't include verse 29 in his references which clearly states how to handle a rapist and his victim if the victim is not engaged to be married to anyone: 22:28 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:229 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Yes, this is what the bible says about a woman who is not engaged to anyone who gets raped - she gets the privilege of becoming her attacker's wife, and her attacker simply has to pay 50 shekels to her father. That's quite a different point of view on rape than what the apologist was attempting to portray these verses to mean. The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives. This is an attempt to shift the question into why were the prisoners of war killed, and away from what the real question is - how do we justify the killing of innocent children? As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites. A "judgment call" that hinges on whether a woman has retained her virginity or not. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things— These are baseless attributes that the bible contradicts in many chapters. I've dealt with many arguments in previous chapters about problems with God's "omniscience" and "omnipresence" and therefore I'd rather not side track from the main point of this rebuttal. so He may do whatever He wishes, This argument from apologists always bugs me. With this baseless argument we can justify God's mass genocides, his demands to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and all sorts of immoral acts "just because he's God and he can do what he wants". This is not a logical argument at all. [He may do whatever He wishes,] so long as it is not in violation of His character. And what may I ask is a violation of "his character"? If he has limits on his actions, that would also shoot a gaping hole in the claim of God being omnipotent. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us. The better argument would be that the "reason" has probably been lost due to the change of the human culture of the bronze age human authors of the bible. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice. More likely "God's reasoning" probably served as a fictional rationalization story to justify the ancient Hebrew's military conquests of other lands. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added). Just because the bible gives God certain attributes doesn't mean that contradictions are impossible - in fact, there are quite a number of contradictions about God's attributes throughout the bible. Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does. Not understanding someone's reasoning does not justify their actions. I have no idea why Germany embraced the Nazi Party and antisemitism over seventy years ago, that doesn't justify what happened simply because I don't understand why people went along with it - their actions were still immoral. As Job 4:17 asked: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added). If the bible is to be the means by which to measure God's morality, then yes, I would argue that many - and in fact most - mortal men are far more moral than the character of God in the bible. The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation). Most moral people can agree that condoning killing and raping children is not what defines "justice". Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6). Speaking from personal opinion, I do not find the death penalty to be "an acceptable means of administering justice". There are flaws in our justice system because humans cannot be perfect in our judgment, and allowing the possibility of even one innocent person to be executed due to our very human flaws of occasionally making mistakes - even if it is a rare occurrence - is a position I cannot support. While God is all loving, I find it impossible to classify God as he is presented in the bible as "all loving" for a plethora of reasons. He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death. I certainly wouldn't call immolating priests for using the wrong fire when lighting incense, then threatening the surviving family members not to grieve over their deaths, on the threat of killing them as well very "propitious" or "just". REFERENCES Paine, Thomas (1795), Age of Reason (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1924 reprint).