Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

[Anonymous]

You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

NP here. Pp is what's known as a "Christian apologist". They have supposedly logical and apparently intellectual answers to any questions you might have about Christianity and such answers are consistently positive toward the faith. Ask anything and they will answer in a way that defends or "apologizes" for Christianity.

It's not a secret or a pejorative. There are respected biblical scholars who practice "Christian apologetics" - "...a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics . For instance, Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig are Christian Apologists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

NP here. Pp is what's known as a "Christian apologist". They have supposedly logical and apparently intellectual answers to any questions you might have about Christianity and such answers are consistently positive toward the faith. Ask anything and they will answer in a way that defends or "apologizes" for Christianity.

It's not a secret or a pejorative. There are respected biblical scholars who practice "Christian apologetics" - "...a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics . For instance, Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig are Christian Apologists.

I am not apologizing for Christianity nor do I need to do so. Nor would I ever to presume to “apologize” for God. God needs no apologies for His deeds.

Ppl Pot killed his own people indiscriminately, only because he was a madman, a Communist atheist that did not value human life and was power mad and plainly a brutal killer. A comment twice up thread proclaimed Pol Pot wasn’t even that murderous! Close to 3 million of his own innocent people tortured and slaughtered for what? What was the reason? He was a brutal, life-taking, sadistic fiend, and had no intention of ever doing anything but grinding his own innocent people under his boot in the worst ways possible. No one apologizes for him here, they excuse his reign of terror.

God, on the other hand, had reasons- not excuses, mind you-for the things that we read about in scripture. The tl;dr summary is God wanted to turn those He created away from sin, and have a personal relationship with each of them/us. He wanted and wants to redeem those He created, and in this incident he took David’s child into His Kingdom, brought David, a great King, into redemption, and showed those who lived at the time, those who worshipped Him, and those who did not, that he was a different and new and true God. We read of this and learn today.

R. C. Sproul, quoting the First Epistle of Peter, writes that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." The verse quoted reads in full: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

NP here. Pp is what's known as a "Christian apologist". They have supposedly logical and apparently intellectual answers to any questions you might have about Christianity and such answers are consistently positive toward the faith. Ask anything and they will answer in a way that defends or "apologizes" for Christianity.

It's not a secret or a pejorative. There are respected biblical scholars who practice "Christian apologetics" - "...a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics . For instance, Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig are Christian Apologists.

I am not apologizing for Christianity nor do I need to do so. Nor would I ever to presume to “apologize” for God. God needs no apologies for His deeds.

Ppl Pot killed his own people indiscriminately, only because he was a madman, a Communist atheist that did not value human life and was power mad and plainly a brutal killer. A comment twice up thread proclaimed Pol Pot wasn’t even that murderous! Close to 3 million of his own innocent people tortured and slaughtered for what? What was the reason? He was a brutal, life-taking, sadistic fiend, and had no intention of ever doing anything but grinding his own innocent people under his boot in the worst ways possible. No one apologizes for him here, they excuse his reign of terror.

God, on the other hand, had reasons- not excuses, mind you-for the things that we read about in scripture. The tl;dr summary is God wanted to turn those He created away from sin, and have a personal relationship with each of them/us. He wanted and wants to redeem those He created, and in this incident he took David’s child into His Kingdom, brought David, a great King, into redemption, and showed those who lived at the time, those who worshipped Him, and those who did not, that he was a different and new and true God. We read of this and learn today.

R. C. Sproul, quoting the First Epistle of Peter, writes that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." The verse quoted reads in full: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

I thought some of your longer posts were sincere and genuine, but you don't want to go there with God had his reasons. God of the old testament is easily the greatest mass murderer ever. And his reasons were almost always that us pesky humans - his creations wouldn't obey him. So he killed them. Indeed, one message comes through loud and clear in the old testament - God doesn't believe in freedom of religion or diversity of thought. You shall worship no other gods. Period. He's a tyrant and Pol Pot was a piker compared to the God of the old testament. It would take entirely too long to cite chapter and verse all the times God killed masses of people out of jealousy, or rage at not being obeyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings.

Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

NP here. Pp is what's known as a "Christian apologist". They have supposedly logical and apparently intellectual answers to any questions you might have about Christianity and such answers are consistently positive toward the faith. Ask anything and they will answer in a way that defends or "apologizes" for Christianity.

It's not a secret or a pejorative. There are respected biblical scholars who practice "Christian apologetics" - "...a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics . For instance, Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig are Christian Apologists.

I am not apologizing for Christianity nor do I need to do so. Nor would I ever to presume to “apologize” for God. God needs no apologies for His deeds.

Ppl Pot killed his own people indiscriminately, only because he was a madman, a Communist atheist that did not value human life and was power mad and plainly a brutal killer. A comment twice up thread proclaimed Pol Pot wasn’t even that murderous! Close to 3 million of his own innocent people tortured and slaughtered for what? What was the reason? He was a brutal, life-taking, sadistic fiend, and had no intention of ever doing anything but grinding his own innocent people under his boot in the worst ways possible. No one apologizes for him here, they excuse his reign of terror.

God, on the other hand, had reasons- not excuses, mind you-for the things that we read about in scripture. The tl;dr summary is God wanted to turn those He created away from sin, and have a personal relationship with each of them/us. He wanted and wants to redeem those He created, and in this incident he took David’s child into His Kingdom, brought David, a great King, into redemption, and showed those who lived at the time, those who worshipped Him, and those who did not, that he was a different and new and true God. We read of this and learn today.

R. C. Sproul, quoting the First Epistle of Peter, writes that "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." The verse quoted reads in full: "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."

As I said, pp is a Christian apologist. It is not a pejorative and has nothing to do with expressing regret or making excusing. The root of the word apologist and apologize is from the Greek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics [bold added]

"Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse.[1][2][3] Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists.[4] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology."

And according to Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-history-of-the-word-apology

"The earliest published use of apology we have evidence of comes from the title of a work by Sir Thomas More, the Catholic humanist and social philosopher of Henry VIII’s court. The word appears in his 1533 work Apologye of Syr Thomas More, Knyght. However, the first published use of a word is not necessarily the same thing as the first actual use of it, and there has recently been discovered earlier, hand-written evidence of apology in correspondence between members of the British court; a letter addressed to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in 1526 contains the line “Here is an apologie made for the defence of the Frenche King."

If you encounter an apology anywhere in the 16th century chances are very good that the word is indicating a defense or justification, as in the case of the 1550 potboiler The Apology of Iohan Bale Agaynste a Ranke Papyst, or Robert Crowley’s summer beach read of 1566, An Apologie, or Defence, of those English Wryters & Preachers which Cerberus the Three Headed Dog of Hell, Chargeth wyth False Doctrine, Under the Name of Predestination."

[Anonymous]

Regarding R.C. Sproul:

Trustworthy Bible Teaching and Discipleship Resources https://www.ligonier.org

Ligonier Ministries, founded by R.C. Sproul, exists to proclaim, teach, and defend the holiness of God in all its fullness to as many people as possible

-----
Sproul was a well-known Christian apologist. Here is a You Tube featuring Sproul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaDF4FtRoUc titled "R.C. Sproul:The Task of Apologetics"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to William Bainbridge's international study, atheism is common among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations.

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf

In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism.

Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0521603676

A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15569904/

So, sounds like the message is -- "you better start believing in an imaginary being if you want to have a happy and long life."

What is unsaid: " and if you DON'T worship this imaginary being, the imaginary being will send you to hell for eternity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are welcome.

In the case of the death of David’s infant son, some people feel anger at God for killing the child. There are two main points of contention that can cause problems in our thinking. The first is that God did not deal with David harshly enough. But this accusation ignores the context of the passage at hand; God did indeed punish David, and He did so threefold. David would never again have peace in his house, he would be publicly shamed for his private sin, and, at the apex, his son would die. Nathan outlined the three judgments:

“‘Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel. . . . The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die’” (2 Samuel 12:10–14).

In an honor-based culture (as was the ancient Near East), some things were worse than death, like public humiliation. Dishonor would be bad enough for the common citizen, but, as God made a point of reminding David, he was no common citizen—he was the king (2 Samuel 12:7). So, although God did not kill David for his evil deeds, the punishments he received caused him to live in shame. David did not get off easy.

A second point of contention is that, when God sent the illness that killed the child, He was unjustly punishing the child. However, from God’s perspective, He was not punishing the child; He was punishing David. The king’s grief was so severe that his servants thought he might die himself: “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, ‘While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate’” (2 Samuel 12:16–18).

Although we know it’s a terrible thing for God to do, most parents would tell you the death of a child is the most horrific thing they could experience in their lifetime. Many parents who experience the death of their child never “get over it.”

God didn’t kill David’s child to cause him to suffer exclusively. God wanted to redeem David.

God’s Law and His mercy work together. They are decidedly cooperative, not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it were not for God’s mercy—if the Law just had its way with sin—then God would have to destroy every person who ever lived, and that would be counterproductive to His reasons for creating us (to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says).

It is true that people will be held accountable for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:4). But this does not mean that God must strike them all down immediately. Instead, God brings them through a process called redemption—and processes take time. We see this in David’s life (Psalm 51). After he repented of his sin, David was restored to fellowship with God. You see, God wants to work with those who are willing to work with Him, as was David, and He desires that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Law plays a role here in that we need the Law to clarify sin (Romans 7:7).

Many people will say that this is an excuse; God kills a child for the sin of his father, how evil, how cruel, how unloving. But if we examine the entire issue as a whole, we see this:

David sinned, committed adultery, and caused the death of his innocent friend.

The child born from David’s son was killed, and because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God.

David was made to suffer an incredible loss that redeemed him. David did not live a life free of punishment (Christians, no matter how “good,” sin.) Would it be better to continue in sin for David and his child, or the child to go to His loving creator and David be redeemed and also go to his loving creator after his death?

God wasn’t moving people around indiscriminately like pieces of meat to be toyed with and thrown away, he was building a new nation and spirit.

Today’s criminal law works on the principles that God established. We spend our primary energies on the criminals’ lives, not on their deaths. Only rarely do we exercise capital punishment.

The concept of atonement existed even before the Law. Godly people were sacrificing animals long before Moses revealed the instructions for the tabernacle sacrifices at Sinai. But the Law showed us that atonement had a greater purpose in view: to restore the sinner to God and to the people. This is why the Law used the terminology of “clean” vs. “unclean”—not “alive” vs. “dead”—because death was not in view. Death is the last option in civilized legal proceedings....
Killing King David for his sin with Bathsheba would have sent the wrong message. We all deserve to die for sinning against a holy God. But God’s purpose for David then was the same as it is for us today: He wants to restore us to fellowship, not kill us for our sins. This is why the Law had ritual atonement (and why Christ had actual atonement), so that we (and David) do not have to die because of our sins.

Sorry for the long posts, but to examine these issues from a Christian and Bible/scriptural standpoint, it’s wordy. I appreciate that you take time to read and consider. It means a lot.

"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

So, you agree that it's disgusting for God to kill children -- but also think that it's abusive to express that to apologist pp. Sounds like, in your opinion, God can do a disgusting thing and mortals are disgusting for simply pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

It’s honestly ok. I respect the opinions of other people. I enjoy discussing the Bible and Scripture and God. It strengthens my relationship with God and there’s always the chance that someday, someone might remember a conversation they had with me about God, or remember reading it, and it will spark something within them. Or it may not; either way, I put it out there to others in good faith.

“In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows: He told them this parable. "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.“

I doubt though that God in the OT killed 100 million plus people as Communist atheists have done. That’s not a number I’ve ever seen tossed around anywhere else. There’s no factual basis for that number.

This site made a good faith effort to use many tools and models and data sets to verify or try to suss out the demographic claims made in the Bible. Modelling biblical human population growth https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model I think they did a pretty good job. You can read about it and learn how they tried to do so, but in the end: “In conclusion, it is relatively easy to explain the modern world population, starting with the six Flood survivors, in c. 4,500 years. The number of people alive at the Tower of Babel event is more difficult to determine, but could easily have been in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, under certain conditions.

The long/short sojourn debate cannot be answered with demographic data, but there is no reason to reject the short sojourn from numerical data alone. And, it is impossible to estimate the number of people alive at the Flood, for we simply do not have the necessary demographic data.”

So although pp makes many claims about the number of people killed in the flood, or killed in multiple events in the Bible, the fact is nobody really knows. We are discussing ancient history, and there just isn’t enough left of that time period to give us anything reliable.

We do know Joshua had 30,000 soldiers at one point, and killed 12,000 Aians with that army. Although anything is possible, I heavily doubt 30,000 soldiers of Joshua’s army (at that time an awesome and overwhelming force) killed millions of people.

When someone here is very very very certain of things that very very very learned scholars of the Bible do not know, people who learned multiple languages to read scripture, people who have traveled around the ME and Holy Lands for decades, devoting their entire lives to scholarship, I don’t discard their words on the whole, but I know they aren’t discussing these topics seriously or from a place of great knowledge. I’ve seen some scholars give a population range of the people present at the Tower of Babel with a low number of 35,000 to a high number of 920,000 people. Another scholar says less than 10k. There are models and mathematical equations they use, and then they try to account for disease, famine, war, infant mortality, etc. One scholar says a little over 1 million people died in the flood in Genesis, one guy said billions were killed. There’s a huge variation of numbers given and multiple models and factors.

Joshua 8:25
The total of all who fell that day, including men and women, was 12,000 the entire population of Ai.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

It’s honestly ok. I respect the opinions of other people. I enjoy discussing the Bible and Scripture and God. It strengthens my relationship with God and there’s always the chance that someday, someone might remember a conversation they had with me about God, or remember reading it, and it will spark something within them. Or it may not; either way, I put it out there to others in good faith.

“In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows: He told them this parable. "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.“

I doubt though that God in the OT killed 100 million plus people as Communist atheists have done. That’s not a number I’ve ever seen tossed around anywhere else. There’s no factual basis for that number.

This site made a good faith effort to use many tools and models and data sets to verify or try to suss out the demographic claims made in the Bible. Modelling biblical human population growth https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model I think they did a pretty good job. You can read about it and learn how they tried to do so, but in the end: “In conclusion, it is relatively easy to explain the modern world population, starting with the six Flood survivors, in c. 4,500 years. The number of people alive at the Tower of Babel event is more difficult to determine, but could easily have been in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, under certain conditions.

The long/short sojourn debate cannot be answered with demographic data, but there is no reason to reject the short sojourn from numerical data alone. And, it is impossible to estimate the number of people alive at the Flood, for we simply do not have the necessary demographic data.”

So although pp makes many claims about the number of people killed in the flood, or killed in multiple events in the Bible, the fact is nobody really knows. We are discussing ancient history, and there just isn’t enough left of that time period to give us anything reliable.

We do know Joshua had 30,000 soldiers at one point, and killed 12,000 Aians with that army. Although anything is possible, I heavily doubt 30,000 soldiers of Joshua’s army (at that time an awesome and overwhelming force) killed millions of people.

When someone here is very very very certain of things that very very very learned scholars of the Bible do not know, people who learned multiple languages to read scripture, people who have traveled around the ME and Holy Lands for decades, devoting their entire lives to scholarship, I don’t discard their words on the whole, but I know they aren’t discussing these topics seriously or from a place of great knowledge. I’ve seen some scholars give a population range of the people present at the Tower of Babel with a low number of 35,000 to a high number of 920,000 people. Another scholar says less than 10k. There are models and mathematical equations they use, and then they try to account for disease, famine, war, infant mortality, etc. One scholar says a little over 1 million people died in the flood in Genesis, one guy said billions were killed. There’s a huge variation of numbers given and multiple models and factors.

Joshua 8:25
The total of all who fell that day, including men and women, was 12,000 the entire population of Ai.

Hopefully, while reading and contributing to this thread, you've come to realize that the words "apologist" and "apologetics" apply to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

It’s honestly ok. I respect the opinions of other people. I enjoy discussing the Bible and Scripture and God. It strengthens my relationship with God and there’s always the chance that someday, someone might remember a conversation they had with me about God, or remember reading it, and it will spark something within them. Or it may not; either way, I put it out there to others in good faith.

“In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows: He told them this parable. "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.“

I doubt though that God in the OT killed 100 million plus people as Communist atheists have done. That’s not a number I’ve ever seen tossed around anywhere else. There’s no factual basis for that number.

This site made a good faith effort to use many tools and models and data sets to verify or try to suss out the demographic claims made in the Bible. Modelling biblical human population growth https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model I think they did a pretty good job. You can read about it and learn how they tried to do so, but in the end: “In conclusion, it is relatively easy to explain the modern world population, starting with the six Flood survivors, in c. 4,500 years. The number of people alive at the Tower of Babel event is more difficult to determine, but could easily have been in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, under certain conditions.

The long/short sojourn debate cannot be answered with demographic data, but there is no reason to reject the short sojourn from numerical data alone. And, it is impossible to estimate the number of people alive at the Flood, for we simply do not have the necessary demographic data.”

So although pp makes many claims about the number of people killed in the flood, or killed in multiple events in the Bible, the fact is nobody really knows. We are discussing ancient history, and there just isn’t enough left of that time period to give us anything reliable.

We do know Joshua had 30,000 soldiers at one point, and killed 12,000 Aians with that army. Although anything is possible, I heavily doubt 30,000 soldiers of Joshua’s army (at that time an awesome and overwhelming force) killed millions of people.

When someone here is very very very certain of things that very very very learned scholars of the Bible do not know, people who learned multiple languages to read scripture, people who have traveled around the ME and Holy Lands for decades, devoting their entire lives to scholarship, I don’t discard their words on the whole, but I know they aren’t discussing these topics seriously or from a place of great knowledge. I’ve seen some scholars give a population range of the people present at the Tower of Babel with a low number of 35,000 to a high number of 920,000 people. Another scholar says less than 10k. There are models and mathematical equations they use, and then they try to account for disease, famine, war, infant mortality, etc. One scholar says a little over 1 million people died in the flood in Genesis, one guy said billions were killed. There’s a huge variation of numbers given and multiple models and factors.

Joshua 8:25
The total of all who fell that day, including men and women, was 12,000 the entire population of Ai.

Hopefully, while reading and contributing to this thread, you've come to realize that the words "apologist" and "apologetics" apply to you.

Explaining what I believe isn’t apologizing. Answering questions asked here by posters to explain the whys of Christianity isn’t apologizing. If someone asks a question about God or Christianity or Jesus, is my only valid choice not answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"...because the child was an innocent, the child went directly to God."

How disgusting! So anyone God kills goes to heaven for eternity? If so, it helps explain why God killed so many people. He was doing them a favor!

Thank you for writing these long responses, pp, it gives great insight into your thinking -- and God's

DP. You are also disgusting. PP is trying to have a good faith argument with you, and s/he is doing it respectfully and patiently. Your responses have been disrespectful and even abusive.

It’s honestly ok. I respect the opinions of other people. I enjoy discussing the Bible and Scripture and God. It strengthens my relationship with God and there’s always the chance that someday, someone might remember a conversation they had with me about God, or remember reading it, and it will spark something within them. Or it may not; either way, I put it out there to others in good faith.

“In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows: He told them this parable. "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.“

I doubt though that God in the OT killed 100 million plus people as Communist atheists have done. That’s not a number I’ve ever seen tossed around anywhere else. There’s no factual basis for that number.

This site made a good faith effort to use many tools and models and data sets to verify or try to suss out the demographic claims made in the Bible. Modelling biblical human population growth https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model I think they did a pretty good job. You can read about it and learn how they tried to do so, but in the end: “In conclusion, it is relatively easy to explain the modern world population, starting with the six Flood survivors, in c. 4,500 years. The number of people alive at the Tower of Babel event is more difficult to determine, but could easily have been in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, under certain conditions.

The long/short sojourn debate cannot be answered with demographic data, but there is no reason to reject the short sojourn from numerical data alone. And, it is impossible to estimate the number of people alive at the Flood, for we simply do not have the necessary demographic data.”

So although pp makes many claims about the number of people killed in the flood, or killed in multiple events in the Bible, the fact is nobody really knows. We are discussing ancient history, and there just isn’t enough left of that time period to give us anything reliable.

We do know Joshua had 30,000 soldiers at one point, and killed 12,000 Aians with that army. Although anything is possible, I heavily doubt 30,000 soldiers of Joshua’s army (at that time an awesome and overwhelming force) killed millions of people.

When someone here is very very very certain of things that very very very learned scholars of the Bible do not know, people who learned multiple languages to read scripture, people who have traveled around the ME and Holy Lands for decades, devoting their entire lives to scholarship, I don’t discard their words on the whole, but I know they aren’t discussing these topics seriously or from a place of great knowledge. I’ve seen some scholars give a population range of the people present at the Tower of Babel with a low number of 35,000 to a high number of 920,000 people. Another scholar says less than 10k. There are models and mathematical equations they use, and then they try to account for disease, famine, war, infant mortality, etc. One scholar says a little over 1 million people died in the flood in Genesis, one guy said billions were killed. There’s a huge variation of numbers given and multiple models and factors.

Joshua 8:25
The total of all who fell that day, including men and women, was 12,000 the entire population of Ai.

Hopefully, while reading and contributing to this thread, you've come to realize that the words "apologist" and "apologetics" apply to you.

Explaining what I believe isn’t apologizing. Answering questions asked here by posters to explain the whys of Christianity isn’t apologizing. If someone asks a question about God or Christianity or Jesus, is my only valid choice not answer?

Of course you can choose to answer in the way that is right for you. What I don't get is your not understanding the term "Christian apologist" despite several attempts to explain it.

Sounds like you haven't read the responses explaining that a "Christian apologist" isn't someone who apologizes for God but who defends god -- and that one of the scholars you cite - RC Sproul - was a well-known and respected apologist who describes himself as such.

Again, here is a You Tube featuring Sproul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaDF4FtRoUc titled "R.C. Sproul:The Task of Apologetics"

[Anonymous]

I am aware of the term and do not label myself so. I only enjoy helping people learn about Christianity, and more specifically, the love of Jesus Christ. I truly believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for us, and I truly love other people and wish for people to be brought salvation. It was a long road for me to accept Christ completely. I apologize for nothing, I love Christ only. It’s simple. I know who Sproul is; but I don’t see myself as such a person. I have basic Bible knowledge and learn and grow in the Word through study and prayer and fellowship with others, believers and non-believers.