“Herem” means to separate, to cut off. It’s where the word “harem” comes from, as in the women’s area in a sultans Palace. The harem was a separate area, where only the women were allowed to be. So the word “herem” in the Old Testament meant to cut off, or separate, the Canaanites from Israel. It did not mean to kill them all.
Too bad that a brilliant scholar such as Walton does not address this topic from the Ge.6 worldview. Although his textual discipline is highly scholarly, I believe that in this particular instance Dr. Heizer is bang on on his interpretation and proper on a representation of God . If the corrupted bloodlines of the Nephalims, that Ge. 6 tells us , continued to exist after the flood, then it makes perfect sense that God was instructing a continued purging for the betterment of All mankind. In this context God in not instructing genocide, but offering a salvific plan so that Israel could become and serve as Yaweh's early priests.
I noticed that he is not citing actual Scripture that says the Israelites need to take the land so God can dwell there. It is NEVER given as the reason. It says in one place that their sin had not yet reached its full, which infers that once they were eventually told to take the land that their sin had reach to the full. BANG.
And what about Leviticus 18:24-25 where Moses says that Canaanites made themselves unclean by practicing the sexual immoralities listed in this chapter and the land is vomiting out the Canaanites. And given to total destruction as stated inJeremiah? And the thing about Jesus driving out the money changers because “they can't be there.” I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am glad that I reviewed this so that I won't make the mistake of buying and reading the Lost World Series.
so why was Rahab allowed to live? She was a native of such lands.. if she had nephilim dna, israel would have never let her live, but they not only did that, but let her have children and integrate her bloodline into Israel.
While he declines to address theodicy and possible analogies such as jihad, I'd like him to suggest resources that would do so. I'm reading _Flood and Fury_, by Matthew Lynch, _God Is a Warrior_, by Trempor Longman, and _The IVP Bible Background Commentary_, by Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas.
So this is the typical approach taken to explain this disturbing word that has a lot people upset and, rightfully questioning, how can a loving God do this. If the Ge. 6 narrative is ignored, nothing about the conquest makes sense. Walton uses the New testament example, of Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers at the temple, because they didn't belong there. How and why didn't these people belong there? It was there land. They were there before Israel. But if we consider that the Anakin ( descendants of the nephalim, Ge. 6 ) were in the land and God was cleaning blood lines, then the " utterly destroy " command makes sense. The Genesis narrative clearly states that the nephalims still existed after the flood. The conquest now takes on a different meaning. God was protecting HUMANITY from this rebellion to ever take place again. So, its not genoside, but God's love , for mankind, on display.
For real clarity watch Expedition Bible episode The Sins of the Amorites. Ritually killing babies as a sacrifice to demonic Gods was pure evil and God was just in using Israel to wipe them out. No apologies for God are ever necessary.
Old Testament for a Christian is rightly interpreted through the lens of the New Testament. Furthermore, as Eastern Orthodox, we generally draw Christological typologies from the text, that is to say relevant parallels. Jonah and the whale for example. The light of the Church and its scriptures inform us the value of the Old.
No way! The New Testament must be viewed through the lens of the Old Testament. The OT provides the context, concepts, and definitions used by the NT authors. This is why Christianity is hardly recognizable as coming from the Scriptures because they teach the doctrines of men, NOT Scripture. Jews have the Talmud and Christians have the Church Fathers.
Jaap Heemskerk You are questioning translations, of which there are dozens, NKJ, NASB, AIV, etc... But there are only a few ancient Biblical manuscripts. Most OT Bibles are based on only one of these called the Masoretic manuscript. Translations are problematic. It doesn’t say in the Hebrew manuscript what your English translation says...and the Greek translations of the NT are the same. The lens of Christianity is to see through lens of man-made traditions, mainly, the traditions of the so-called “Church Fathers.” The Church Fathers did not teach what the Scriptures teach! When you delve into the manuscripts which is what I do full time, study the ancient texts, you will discover that between the time of the apostles NT writings and the writings of the “Church Fathers” the doctrines were changed. The writings of Paul are especially twisted, but this is evident even from the plain reading of the English text when compared to the later church teachings by the fathers. Anyway, my point is, that because Christians do not test the spirits by the Word, they have made void the doctrines of Jesus with their religious dogmas. For example, ALL of the Christian feasts are pagan. Christianity does not follow even ONE Biblical holy day. Easter is coming up and that is the celebration of the Babylonian moon goddess, the fertility goddess Ishtar with her eggs and bunny rabbits. Easter is even calculated based on the moon like the Babylonians. There is nothing about Jesus in the killing of infants and eggs colored in their blood no matter how much you attach a “resurrection” label to Ishtar Sunday. Traditions DESTROY the Word of God and twist the Scriptures to the destruction of many who trust in tradition...which is most of Christianity bowing the knee to Mystery Babylon, the Harlot full of every abomination and unclean thing. It doesn’t matter whose tradition it is, if it doesn’t line up with the Word of God then it is empty and profane. Go study for yourself so you can discern the difference between Scriptural truth and useless traditions. Please, just go look into what I’m saying.
Jaap Heemskerk you’re the second person I’ve come across recently who feels extraordinarily comfortable in trashing the value and validity of scripture. Both you and they value the traditions taught by their sect over the word Paul says is God breathed. You both feel free to mock the esteem even Jesus held the scriptures in, and puts your tradition above Christ’s own testimony. Remarkable, and possibly blasphemous, but, hey, you do you, buddy.
@Jaap Heemskerk your church isn't what saves Us it's Christ himself and the N.T is his story resting on the O.T and both are 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism: church traditions most fit into this theology and when it deviates it should be viewed as Jesus viewed the Jewish traditions that went against God's true instructions and kept people in religious legalism. Church fathers had many different ideas and didn't agree on everything so this is why the Bible is the highest authority :not peoples different reinterpretation. The Bible must interpret itself in the context it was written by the Ancient Hebrew writers.
@@speechgirl36 Jesus and his Apostles including Paul had Jewish theology of the 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that Rabbinics like you rejected in the 2nd century AD because it supported Christianity's claims of Jesus being the visible YHWH. The trinity comes from this Jewish theology of the 2nd temple period from the O.T. It was called the( Two powers in Heaven) theology written about in Alan Segal's book by this same title.
I'm only 8 minutes in, and already I'm afraid this is going to be one of those views that tries to soften the text. I may be wrong. We'll see as things go along. But I will say this: I've never understood why the Canaanite issue is hard for Christians. I can see unbelievers objecting to it, like they object to any of God's just judgments. But Christians? Why? When I first read the accounts I took them at face value. These were deeply sinful people who were justly judged because of their (egregious) sins. It's no different than the other accounts of people being justly judged for their sins. (Even Israel.) God also gave them years to repent. Gen. 15 says 4 generations. It's not like He was rash in His justice. ETA: Got up to 21:00 "smearing the Canaanites"? Their behaviors are clearly stated. They were guilty of severe sins, including child sacrifice. The OT often says that Israel was not to do the things their neighbors did. That's as far as I got. This was disappointing. God needs no excuses made for His just judgments of sin. We, as humans, don't like that because we don't realize how sinful sin really is.
If you listen to other discussion with John Walton, he is definitly okay with "softening" his interpretation of the text. Another video he did about the flood (ruclips.net/video/H3iHi62Dixg/видео.html) attempted to show that flooding the whole world and wiping out everyone except noah and family didn't happen, and justified it using two verses from Zephania and one section from Lamentations. The argumentation was incredibly weak, and yet it was taken as fact, and the rest of his discussion was that we just need to accept it and get over our preconceived notions of everything being literal. Oye Vey. I understand what he is saying, and yes his arguements are plausible, but they are a reach. Like you said, we don't have to apologize for God's actions.
@@sonofnun1917 I listened and didn't think it was a weak argument at all. Walton is always trying to get to the original interpretation of the text. I don't see how that's a softening unless there was a false hardening to begin with.
I completely agree with you. There is a point, however, where we have to understand there is meaning that is only understandable to the ancient cultures involved. We read these scripture with our modern experience and miss meaning that was obvious to those involved. There is a lot going on here. In the end, we have to trust God and his guidance. Personally, I think there is great value in understanding the different views on this subject. I completely agree with the speaker that this was an act of imminent domain. I think that's very clear from the text. The why behind that, I think he's a little weak on that subject. In fact, I think he all but skips over it.
It's a difficult argument that God hates the killing of children so much he commands his.people to kill the people who do this including all their children.
“Herem” means to separate, to cut off. It’s where the word “harem” comes from, as in the women’s area in a sultans Palace. The harem was a separate area, where only the women were allowed to be.
So the word “herem” in the Old Testament meant to cut off, or separate, the Canaanites from Israel. It did not mean to kill them all.
Too bad that a brilliant scholar such as Walton does not address this topic from the Ge.6 worldview.
Although his textual discipline is highly scholarly, I believe that in this particular instance Dr. Heizer is bang on on his interpretation and proper on a representation of God .
If the corrupted bloodlines of the Nephalims, that Ge. 6 tells us , continued to exist after the flood, then it makes perfect sense that God was instructing a continued purging for the betterment of All mankind.
In this context God in not instructing genocide, but offering a salvific plan so that Israel could become and serve as Yaweh's early priests.
I noticed that he is not citing actual Scripture that says the Israelites need to take the land so God can dwell there. It is NEVER given as the reason. It says in one place that their sin had not yet reached its full, which infers that once they were eventually told to take the land that their sin had reach to the full. BANG.
😊
And what about Leviticus 18:24-25 where Moses says that Canaanites made themselves unclean by practicing the sexual immoralities listed in this chapter and the land is vomiting out the Canaanites. And given to total destruction as stated inJeremiah? And the thing about Jesus driving out the money changers because “they can't be there.” I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am glad that I reviewed this so that I won't make the mistake of buying and reading the Lost World Series.
Here's a SUMMARY of his book: ruclips.net/video/7R-PVSswnDo/видео.html
“Haram” total destruction, was only for the areas with the Anakim (post flood nephilim) The giant clans. See Heiser: Unseen Realm
so why was Rahab allowed to live? She was a native of such lands.. if she had nephilim dna, israel would have never let her live, but they not only did that, but let her have children and integrate her bloodline into Israel.
@@toughbiblepassages9082she was a native of one of the lands of the anakim/rephaim?
While he declines to address theodicy and possible analogies such as jihad, I'd like him to suggest resources that would do so. I'm reading _Flood and Fury_, by Matthew Lynch, _God Is a Warrior_, by Trempor Longman, and _The IVP Bible Background Commentary_, by Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas.
So this is the typical approach taken to explain this disturbing word that has a lot people upset and, rightfully questioning, how can a loving God do this.
If the Ge. 6 narrative is ignored, nothing about the conquest makes sense.
Walton uses the New testament example, of Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers at the temple, because they didn't belong there.
How and why didn't these people belong there?
It was there land. They were there before Israel.
But if we consider that the Anakin ( descendants of the nephalim, Ge. 6 ) were in the land and God was cleaning blood lines, then the " utterly destroy " command makes sense. The Genesis narrative clearly states that the nephalims still existed after the flood.
The conquest now takes on a different meaning.
God was protecting HUMANITY from this rebellion to ever take place again.
So, its not genoside, but God's love , for mankind, on display.
For real clarity watch Expedition Bible episode The Sins of the Amorites. Ritually killing babies as a sacrifice to demonic Gods was pure evil and God was just in using Israel to wipe them out. No apologies for God are ever necessary.
Old Testament for a Christian is rightly interpreted through the lens of the New Testament. Furthermore, as Eastern Orthodox, we generally draw Christological typologies from the text, that is to say relevant parallels. Jonah and the whale for example. The light of the Church and its scriptures inform us the value of the Old.
No way! The New Testament must be viewed through the lens of the Old Testament. The OT provides the context, concepts, and definitions used by the NT authors. This is why Christianity is hardly recognizable as coming from the Scriptures because they teach the doctrines of men, NOT Scripture. Jews have the Talmud and Christians have the Church Fathers.
Jaap Heemskerk You are questioning translations, of which there are dozens, NKJ, NASB, AIV, etc... But there are only a few ancient Biblical manuscripts. Most OT Bibles are based on only one of these called the Masoretic manuscript. Translations are problematic. It doesn’t say in the Hebrew manuscript what your English translation says...and the Greek translations of the NT are the same. The lens of Christianity is to see through lens of man-made traditions, mainly, the traditions of the so-called “Church Fathers.” The Church Fathers did not teach what the Scriptures teach! When you delve into the manuscripts which is what I do full time, study the ancient texts, you will discover that between the time of the apostles NT writings and the writings of the “Church Fathers” the doctrines were changed. The writings of Paul are especially twisted, but this is evident even from the plain reading of the English text when compared to the later church teachings by the fathers. Anyway, my point is, that because Christians do not test the spirits by the Word, they have made void the doctrines of Jesus with their religious dogmas. For example, ALL of the Christian feasts are pagan. Christianity does not follow even ONE Biblical holy day. Easter is coming up and that is the celebration of the Babylonian moon goddess, the fertility goddess Ishtar with her eggs and bunny rabbits. Easter is even calculated based on the moon like the Babylonians. There is nothing about Jesus in the killing of infants and eggs colored in their blood no matter how much you attach a “resurrection” label to Ishtar Sunday. Traditions DESTROY the Word of God and twist the Scriptures to the destruction of many who trust in tradition...which is most of Christianity bowing the knee to Mystery Babylon, the Harlot full of every abomination and unclean thing. It doesn’t matter whose tradition it is, if it doesn’t line up with the Word of God then it is empty and profane. Go study for yourself so you can discern the difference between Scriptural truth and useless traditions. Please, just go look into what I’m saying.
Jaap Heemskerk you’re the second person I’ve come across recently who feels extraordinarily comfortable in trashing the value and validity of scripture. Both you and they value the traditions taught by their sect over the word Paul says is God breathed. You both feel free to mock the esteem even Jesus held the scriptures in, and puts your tradition above Christ’s own testimony. Remarkable, and possibly blasphemous, but, hey, you do you, buddy.
@Jaap Heemskerk your church isn't what saves Us it's Christ himself and the N.T is his story resting on the O.T and both are 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism: church traditions most fit into this theology and when it deviates it should be viewed as Jesus viewed the Jewish traditions that went against God's true instructions and kept people in religious legalism.
Church fathers had many different ideas and didn't agree on everything so this is why the Bible is the highest authority :not peoples different reinterpretation.
The Bible must interpret itself in the context it was written by the Ancient Hebrew writers.
@@speechgirl36 Jesus and his Apostles including Paul had Jewish theology of the 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that Rabbinics like you rejected in the 2nd century AD because it supported Christianity's claims of Jesus being the visible YHWH. The trinity comes from this Jewish theology of the 2nd temple period from the O.T.
It was called the( Two powers in Heaven) theology written about in Alan Segal's book by this same title.
APOLOGETICS...
IF HE WOULD'VE HAD HIS ENTIRE FAMILY CUT TO PIECES THERE...THIS FART WOULD NOT BE SPEAKING THIS WAY..
I'm only 8 minutes in, and already I'm afraid this is going to be one of those views that tries to soften the text. I may be wrong. We'll see as things go along. But I will say this: I've never understood why the Canaanite issue is hard for Christians. I can see unbelievers objecting to it, like they object to any of God's just judgments. But Christians? Why? When I first read the accounts I took them at face value. These were deeply sinful people who were justly judged because of their (egregious) sins. It's no different than the other accounts of people being justly judged for their sins. (Even Israel.) God also gave them years to repent. Gen. 15 says 4 generations. It's not like He was rash in His justice.
ETA: Got up to 21:00 "smearing the Canaanites"? Their behaviors are clearly stated. They were guilty of severe sins, including child sacrifice. The OT often says that Israel was not to do the things their neighbors did.
That's as far as I got. This was disappointing. God needs no excuses made for His just judgments of sin. We, as humans, don't like that because we don't realize how sinful sin really is.
If you listen to other discussion with John Walton, he is definitly okay with "softening" his interpretation of the text. Another video he did about the flood (ruclips.net/video/H3iHi62Dixg/видео.html) attempted to show that flooding the whole world and wiping out everyone except noah and family didn't happen, and justified it using two verses from Zephania and one section from Lamentations. The argumentation was incredibly weak, and yet it was taken as fact, and the rest of his discussion was that we just need to accept it and get over our preconceived notions of everything being literal. Oye Vey. I understand what he is saying, and yes his arguements are plausible, but they are a reach. Like you said, we don't have to apologize for God's actions.
@@sonofnun1917 I listened and didn't think it was a weak argument at all. Walton is always trying to get to the original interpretation of the text. I don't see how that's a softening unless there was a false hardening to begin with.
I completely agree with you. There is a point, however, where we have to understand there is meaning that is only understandable to the ancient cultures involved. We read these scripture with our modern experience and miss meaning that was obvious to those involved. There is a lot going on here. In the end, we have to trust God and his guidance. Personally, I think there is great value in understanding the different views on this subject. I completely agree with the speaker that this was an act of imminent domain. I think that's very clear from the text. The why behind that, I think he's a little weak on that subject. In fact, I think he all but skips over it.
People in the 2020 kinda dont like to read about genocide, you know, is a bad thing to do. Arent'it?
It's a difficult argument that God hates the killing of children so much he commands his.people to kill the people who do this including all their children.
There is plenty of empty land on earth why couldn't god Zoom them their .apologist for the bible will come up with everything possible what a shame